Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 11, 2011
Politics Sneak Preview of the Cover of The Stranger This Week, Created by Dan Savage and Aaron Huffman
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM
4
Fix the blending mode on your red crosshairs so they don't show black over the blue country color. Makes it look like you have three different colors where they overlap with the white.
6
Brilliant.
But why is Garfield down as an attempt? Or should I be embarrassed at my gnorance of American history?
But why is Garfield down as an attempt? Or should I be embarrassed at my gnorance of American history?
16
@6 wiki says: "His presidency was cut short after he was shot by Charles J. Guiteau while entering a railroad station in Washington D.C. on July 2, 1881. He was the second United States President to be assassinated."
Awesome, amazing, very cool. Would like a commemorative issue suitable for framing...seriously.
Awesome, amazing, very cool. Would like a commemorative issue suitable for framing...seriously.
19
You can see Dan's love of Musical theater here, as he picks up all the ones featured in Assassins!
20
Garfield survived another 80 days and died of a heart attack, but the gunshot was still the cause of his death, which has always been called an assassination... at least by Sondheim and Weidman.
21
Is the message "COOL IT, BROTHERS. BE COOL, BE CALM." in the margin for anyone in particular? Please explain.
22
Well done, gentlemen. I can see a series here, maybe photoshop Sirhan's face over Beck's "vigilante" background from his website... What other hate speech is tolerated depending on the political affiliation of the person spewing it?
24
The Garfield detail has been fixed. Good catch.
"Cool it, brothers. Be cool, be calm," is a variation on Malcolm X's last words—there's some dispute over what his last words were exactly.
"Cool it, brothers. Be cool, be calm," is a variation on Malcolm X's last words—there's some dispute over what his last words were exactly.
25
Garfield died 11 weeks after being shot. Truman was never in the direct line of fire. Other DYK: Huey Long, Medgar Evers, Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak (sitting next to FDR). Hope you can make this cover go viral (so to speak) - e.g. mailing one to every Tea Partyer, Palin, Bachmann, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck.
27
We didn't include Richard Nixon, whose Santa-suited assassin was featured in Assassins. Just for the record.
Love me my Assassins soundtrack though.
Love me my Assassins soundtrack though.
29
I don't get it. A bunch of surveyor marks that coincidentally line up with assassinations/attempts? It's utterly devoid of implication.
30
Christopher Frizzelle, I completely forgot that. I knew there was a good explanation but didn't think I would come up with it just looking at it. Thanks!
32
Oh, wait, @24 leads me to see you read this WAY closer than I, rodolfo. Sorry to not see your point at first. (Love the Charles Nelson Reilly avatar...)
35
Marvelous! (And I'm swamped at work! Swamped! Stop doing interesting things that people send me can't-not-click links to!)
36
@29: I'm with you, I get that it's a reference to the Palin map and all, but I don't see what the implication is with all the political assassinations in U.S. history.
39
wow
this is really edgey
massively mega
cutting edge
in-your-face
razor sharp
no-holds-barred
kick'em-in-the-nuts
cartoon-of-Mohamed-fucking-a-goat kind of edgey.
I hope you cats have living wills.....
this is really edgey
massively mega
cutting edge
in-your-face
razor sharp
no-holds-barred
kick'em-in-the-nuts
cartoon-of-Mohamed-fucking-a-goat kind of edgey.
I hope you cats have living wills.....
40
@36 I think the point is that Palin's map reads so much like a hit list that literally all you have to do is swap out the names and move the targets to correspond with actual events, and voila - it's an actual hit list.
47
Poster quality prints would be good. Newsprint brittles and changes color so quickly...
Y'all could make a nice high quality copy available online.
Y'all could make a nice high quality copy available online.
49
This is about as good as the cover telling us "Do not despair" and "You don't have to leave".
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32102828@N0…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32102828@N0…
50
I like to think of myself as a relatively thoughtful fellow, but I don't understand this map...the Malcolm X and Dr. Tiller inclusion is where I get thrown. Without them, it's a straightforward "Politicians who were shot" map. Is the inference here "People, many of whom were politicians, who were killed (or almost) for their political beliefs?" Wouldn't Sacco & Vanzetti and some others figure in that event? Oh I don't know...just tell me to shut up. Love how you leveraged the Palin map motif, though.
52
@42 I was joking about Halmilton, however on reflection, isn't death by duel a type of assassination in which one is complacent?
54
@50, I was going with that too but Garfield doesn't fit. I've settled for "selected prominent Amurricans physically attacked rather than just yelled at."
@52, I love you for getting so near to "complaisant".
@52, I love you for getting so near to "complaisant".
60
@52: "Isn't death by duel a type of assassination in which one is complacent?"
I'd go with "assisted suicide".
I'd go with "assisted suicide".
62
gus, you are making my English major self feel verruh thtoopid today...I had to look that up...you are a smarty pants. Grr. I fear you would beat me in a game of Trivial Pursuit, and I LOVE Trivial Pursuit.
66
#56: I now understand. The theme the editors ran with is not that American politicians were shot by Americans, the theme is notable American people were shot in the United States. To cut down on artist talent costs, maybe one red map of the United States with the slogan "Red, White and Blammo" can be run every week.
68
If you post a high-res image, I will print it and put it with the other memorials at Giffords' office here in Tucson.
69
Don't feel bad, Canuck, I only know that word accidentally. Novelist Michael Malone wrote an elderly ex-mob thief called Simon "Weeper" Berg. Before escaping prison he'd whiled away the days trying to absorb the more unusual 50-cent words he found in the dictionary. He'd say things like, "I'm aching in every appurtenance, me who was complaisant with the biggest of the big."
70
@58 Oh, Dan... the original cast was Off-Broadway.
On the other hand, you know useful things like how to raise a child and write a column. Showtunes is all I got.
On the other hand, you know useful things like how to raise a child and write a column. Showtunes is all I got.
71
That has got to be the first time ever that George Wallace and Harvey Milk have been on any sort of list together.
72
@ 50 not all political assassinations are assassinations of politicans. The Tiller and Malcolm X assassinations were politically motivated and meant to make a political statement.
73
Oh, that's okay then, gus (even though I know you're just trying to make me feel better--pats top of head) You certainly have an interesting reading list. Someday you'll have to post it, so I don't have to keep combing through pages of comments looking for the ones with the book references...hey! That's what slog needs on their "more about me" page...and now, after reading yours, whenever the Decemberists are on the radio, I think, "Ooo, gus would *not* be pleased..."
74
I'd have gone with Medgar Evers rather than George Moscone, since Harvey Milk is already represented. Surely Evers is better known than Moscone, plus then you get another surveyor's symbol in a geographical area that doesn't have one rather than two on top of each other.
(no disrespect intended to Moscone)
But anyway, this is great.
(no disrespect intended to Moscone)
But anyway, this is great.
75
What about McKinley? There was even an "incitement scandal" attached to that assassination (William Randolph Hearst published a couplet by Ambrose Bierce that was later claimed by some to have been calling for McKinley's assassination).
76
The map is missing a significant assassination -- Huey Long at the State Capitol in Baton Rouge, La., in 1935.
And if it is going to include attempted assassinations (i.e., Gerald Ford) then why doesn't it include Harry Truman in 1950?
And if it is going to include attempted assassinations (i.e., Gerald Ford) then why doesn't it include Harry Truman in 1950?
78
@77 Ach, you're right! I looked through it over and over and over and didn't see it until you told me it was there. Silly me.
85
"Why is the assassinated Representative Leo J Ryan not on the cover?"
Maybe it's a fold out cover with Ryan's death correctly located in South America?
Dan, ah I always sound clever till Nixon gets involved! Amends >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJf9QQkZw…
Maybe it's a fold out cover with Ryan's death correctly located in South America?
Dan, ah I always sound clever till Nixon gets involved! Amends >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJf9QQkZw…
86
I'm in love. You guys could make some high quality posters available and make a ton for your charities.
87
Christ, are you people blind? Not that there's anything wrong with that. But @84, they're on there, they're on there.
88
Jesus. What does it say that you can throw up a poster with sixteen assassinations and attempted assassinations, and half the comments are all "Hey, you forgot this one!"
I'm guessing they had to trim down the list - if they put them all up there, we might not be able to see the map.
I'm guessing they had to trim down the list - if they put them all up there, we might not be able to see the map.
90
If you're using Dr. Tiller then include Dr. Slepian who was gunned down in his house after returning from temple. High Profile and sad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Sle…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Sle…
91
disgusting, but I expect no less from the stranger.
are you also going to publish some proof that the shooter was a fan of sarah palin or that her graphic caused this..or just continue the witch hunt?
i'm sure this comment will be deleted, free speech and all.
are you also going to publish some proof that the shooter was a fan of sarah palin or that her graphic caused this..or just continue the witch hunt?
i'm sure this comment will be deleted, free speech and all.
92
And you forgot Oswald's assassination. Tin foil types would tell you his killing was more significant than Kennedy's.
95
Garfield was shot, but should have survived as no major organs were hit. It was multiple doctors using unclean hands (very unclean,as in not having been washed after arriving by horse) and instruments to probe the wound that caused infection and death. Lister's anti-bacterial techniques and solutions were widely known at the time, but the doctors who treated Garfield were old-schoolers who did not believe in his theories. Some historians call Garfield's doctors his actual killers. Guiteau himself actually used that defense at his own trial.
96
Number 52 (with all due respect to number 54) I think the word you're looking for is "complicit."
97
I guess I'm a little slow -- can somebody spell out the connection between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Sarah Palin's goofy Web page?
98
And Andrew Jackson - who, at least in legend, proceeded to attack the assassin with his cane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_jack…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_jack…
100
I think that the George Tiller Assassination does not seem to fit with the others as he was not a political figure (though he was politicized). However, if Tiller is going to be included, then it seems Dr. Bernard Slepian should be as well.
103
They left out Huey Long: "Huey Pierce Long, Jr. (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935), nicknamed The Kingfish, served as the 40th Governor of Louisiana from 1928–1932 and as a U.S. Senator from 1932 to 1935. A Democrat, he was noted for his radical populist policies. At the height of his popularity, Long was shot by a gunman on September 8, 1935, at the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge. He died two days later at the age of 42. His last words were reportedly, "God, don't let me die, I have so much left to do." - Wikipedia
104
How about Police Officer Tim Brenton, murdered by Chris Montfort, who was encouraged by Seattle's liberal's anti-police rhetoric and his loony left UW professors?
105
Complicit - Complaisant - Complacent - close but no cigar. Compliant is the word you want - because death by duel indicates that the victim somehow has complied in his own demise because he agreed to the duel. The other words indicate some sort of meek resignation - like, oh well, go ahead and shoot me - I deserve it.
106
There are surely some that The Stranger missed.
But
A) they want a cover that looks A LOT like Palin's pic that was on her web site, and
B) they want it readable.
So they chose to limit it to 16 bars for each assassination or assassination attempts for that reason.
But
A) they want a cover that looks A LOT like Palin's pic that was on her web site, and
B) they want it readable.
So they chose to limit it to 16 bars for each assassination or assassination attempts for that reason.
107
Rhett, I agree complaisant was silly of me, but I don't think your compliant has quite knocked complicit out of the running.
Complicit has the meaning not of resignation, but of responsibility, which I think is closest to Ignatz' meaning when he wondered if death by duel is "a type of assassination in which one is complacent"."
Compliant suggests agreeing to an external proposition, and since in truth Burr and Hamilton refused their friends' efforts to dissuade them, their duel represented the opposite of compliance.
Complicit has the meaning not of resignation, but of responsibility, which I think is closest to Ignatz' meaning when he wondered if death by duel is "a type of assassination in which one is complacent"."
Compliant suggests agreeing to an external proposition, and since in truth Burr and Hamilton refused their friends' efforts to dissuade them, their duel represented the opposite of compliance.
109
@108
We all know that it's really NSWL, he probably had his IP address blocked, so cowardly anonymous comments are his only sexual outlet.
We all know that it's really NSWL, he probably had his IP address blocked, so cowardly anonymous comments are his only sexual outlet.
110
Half white but like Obama considers himself black. Hence the persecution complex encourage by the stranger and other left Qing anti police publications.
111
'cowardly anonymous comments'
Unlike your comments svensken?
Btw why shouldn't the local cop assassinations by Chris Montfort and Maurice clemmens be included?
Unlike your comments svensken?
Btw why shouldn't the local cop assassinations by Chris Montfort and Maurice clemmens be included?
112
gus, I think "complicit" refers to the one who kills in the duel, and "complaisant" refers to the one who was shot, who was helpful by being the one who died. Which is what I assumed you meant after I looked up the meaning...."Willing to please others; obliging; agreeable." What could be more willing to please than to allow one's self to be shot first, thereby sparing the other dueler??
113
Great cover ---- finally.......Geez, what took so frigging long to finally come up with a decent cover?
Hey, Dan, did you hear about those Super Heroes in Seattle (Holy Mother of Godzilla, WTF???)?
Perhaps you could put on a costume to make up for that misdirected support you gave to the Bush family and their war in Iraq -- to kill all those Iraqis and such?
Maybe call yourself, Doorlicker Man or something equally inane?
This cover finally makes up for the Stranger rag endorsing all those corrupt douchebags for mayor (Rice, Schell, Nickels).
But not for that lamer, Paul Constant (who hired that guy, BTW????).
Hope you included Giffords' voting record in this Stranger edition?
From her record she evidently supports the right of psychos to buy handguns with super-sized ammo clips --- too frigging bad she actually ran into one (and especially horrible for those poor bystanders -- whom my heart really and genuinely goes out to).
It's unusual that a politician is victimized by their own legislation or voting record, usually its only the rest of us poor saps who suffer.
What's that they say about karma?
Hey, Dan, did you hear about those Super Heroes in Seattle (Holy Mother of Godzilla, WTF???)?
Perhaps you could put on a costume to make up for that misdirected support you gave to the Bush family and their war in Iraq -- to kill all those Iraqis and such?
Maybe call yourself, Doorlicker Man or something equally inane?
This cover finally makes up for the Stranger rag endorsing all those corrupt douchebags for mayor (Rice, Schell, Nickels).
But not for that lamer, Paul Constant (who hired that guy, BTW????).
Hope you included Giffords' voting record in this Stranger edition?
From her record she evidently supports the right of psychos to buy handguns with super-sized ammo clips --- too frigging bad she actually ran into one (and especially horrible for those poor bystanders -- whom my heart really and genuinely goes out to).
It's unusual that a politician is victimized by their own legislation or voting record, usually its only the rest of us poor saps who suffer.
What's that they say about karma?
114
This list is incredibly arbitrary, how do folks make it or not, why did they include Moscone but not include Huey Long, or include George Tiller but not include John W. Stephens? And of course what about Garfield??? Most glaringly of all, there are no labour leaders like Harry Simms or Sid Hatfield whose assassination led to the uprising of over 10,000 angry West Virginia miners and was only put down by bombs courtesy of the US Air Force, which is of much greater importance than whatever impotent blogging and whining will come from so-called liberals over this matter. Makes me really have no interest in what these folks have to say about political assassination in America if they are too ill-informed or arbitrary to be able to put it in context. But then that's what journalists do nowadays apparently.
115
Fun thing I'm doing now: Searching for "Map symbols," "surveyor," "-Palin," "-2011." Coming up with all sorts of legends and images. Guess what specific design I haven't come across yet.
116
One problem: Wanting to impress Jodi Foster doesn't count as political motive, so Reagan fails to meet the same criteria as the remainder of your set.
117
Canuck, if courtesy someday requires me to decline to shoot back in a duel, may my epitaph read "Complaisant? Perhaps. Non Compos Mentis? Mos Def."
121
Harvey Milk is one of my heros. Sad to have lost him, but grateful that he could be recognized in this way.
124
I love it. Shooter who is a leftist/liberal and reads the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf = ITS SARAH PALINS fault. No wonder the right says the left can't think. This cover is devoid of logic and commentary. Wow.
125
All this is doing is adding fuel to the fire. Way to go, guys. I shouldn't have expected anything more from people who want to politicize everything.
127
@124
Your a complete idiot for thinking that either of those books are tied to American politics. The shooters politics are unknown. However the simple fact of the rights rhetoric and whats happening in America is what your pea-brain can't conceive.
Welcome to Slog, you just joined a few minutes ago so I hope your not some rightwing attack dog.
Your a complete idiot for thinking that either of those books are tied to American politics. The shooters politics are unknown. However the simple fact of the rights rhetoric and whats happening in America is what your pea-brain can't conceive.
Welcome to Slog, you just joined a few minutes ago so I hope your not some rightwing attack dog.
128
#124
Exactly. And say, even if Sarah Palin were to be a Mastermind Devil, encouraging domestic terrorism...
Shouldn't the buck stop at Barack Obama's desk for not using his intelligence gathering to know beforehand that Jared Loughner was a balloon ready to pop!?
Why didn't our much vaulted "domestic spy network" descend of this guy who was broadcasting danger messages like a New Jersey firefly on a humid summer evening?
Exactly. And say, even if Sarah Palin were to be a Mastermind Devil, encouraging domestic terrorism...
Shouldn't the buck stop at Barack Obama's desk for not using his intelligence gathering to know beforehand that Jared Loughner was a balloon ready to pop!?
Why didn't our much vaulted "domestic spy network" descend of this guy who was broadcasting danger messages like a New Jersey firefly on a humid summer evening?
131
Now do one of all the US citizens murdered by the federal government.
....
You might need more space.
....
You might need more space.
132
Now do one of all the US citizens murdered by the federal government.
....
You might need more space.
....
You might need more space.
134
For people who talk about the dangers of inflaming the political rhetoric, you really help contribute your fair share. Palin doesn't need to be beat up on any longer. She's been over for a long time.
PS Did you hear that the Stranger is a bunch of sadist bestiality necrophiliacs? They keep beating a dead horse.
PS Did you hear that the Stranger is a bunch of sadist bestiality necrophiliacs? They keep beating a dead horse.
135
@124 and 128: Hmm. Communist Manifesto= Left Wing. Mein Kampf = Right Wing. Guess he wanted to be fair and balanced. You know, like Fox News?
Also, let me be the elventyteenth person to call for the cover to be available as a poster.
Also, let me be the elventyteenth person to call for the cover to be available as a poster.
136
You missed a white crosshair:
39th Governor of Texas John Connally Jr. was seriously wounded in the chest, thigh and wrist in the J.F.K assassination in 1963 in Dallas,TX...
39th Governor of Texas John Connally Jr. was seriously wounded in the chest, thigh and wrist in the J.F.K assassination in 1963 in Dallas,TX...
138
WOW! AND TO THINK IT ONLY TOOK US WHAT, A MERE 100 YEARS, TO ACCUMULATE THOSE SIXTEEN INCIDENTS?
I'd say we have a pretty-damned-good track record. Shit like this happens VERY infrequently, and generally only at the hands of mentally sick people.
I'd say we have a pretty-damned-good track record. Shit like this happens VERY infrequently, and generally only at the hands of mentally sick people.
139
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Barak Obama (June 2008)
Gun metaphors and military terms are common in politics, sports and any strategic endeavor. I'll admit, I was secretly hoping the AZ nut job would show up for court in a Fox News t-shirt, and a "Mama Grizzly" baseball cap, but life is rarely that simple. This cover is retarded.
Gun metaphors and military terms are common in politics, sports and any strategic endeavor. I'll admit, I was secretly hoping the AZ nut job would show up for court in a Fox News t-shirt, and a "Mama Grizzly" baseball cap, but life is rarely that simple. This cover is retarded.
141
@140
How do you explain the ones that happened before Palin and Beck (et al.) came on the scene (Columbine, Virginia Tech)?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/8…
How do you explain the ones that happened before Palin and Beck (et al.) came on the scene (Columbine, Virginia Tech)?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/8…
143
Columbine, Virginia Tech ect.
These are a problem with our gun loving culture that we need to fix. The best system would be the Canadian model where people are interviewed and supply references before receiving a gun.
Which branch of our politics supplied the loose gun laws?
These are a problem with our gun loving culture that we need to fix. The best system would be the Canadian model where people are interviewed and supply references before receiving a gun.
Which branch of our politics supplied the loose gun laws?
144
Also! Which branch of our politics destroyed our mental health infrastructure?
If Papa Reagan didn't come to mind then your wrong.
If Papa Reagan didn't come to mind then your wrong.
145
@25--Glad someone brought up Anton Cermak
But then, you might have to add Chicago mayor Carter Harrison, who was shot to death in his own home by a disgruntled office seeker. Kinda like Garfield... and, no doubt, plenty more mayors, etc. This country is, indeed, shaped by the gun. Consider this map a scratch at the surface, the best-known assassinations.
But then, you might have to add Chicago mayor Carter Harrison, who was shot to death in his own home by a disgruntled office seeker. Kinda like Garfield... and, no doubt, plenty more mayors, etc. This country is, indeed, shaped by the gun. Consider this map a scratch at the surface, the best-known assassinations.
146
@114 Picking nits, but the US Air Force did not exist until after WWII. In 1921, it would have been the Army Air Corps, I believe.
147
@134: Krugman did a good job in a recent column talking about the difference between incivility and incitement. The British parliament is known for hilarious incivility ("sex-starved boa-constrictor," "damp rag," "miserable pipsqueak," "semi-house-trained polecat"), with little violence because of standards around incitement.
This cover could definitely count as incivil, but there's nothing here that cries incitement.
This cover could definitely count as incivil, but there's nothing here that cries incitement.
148
@140 I can't believe Maddow even dares *mention* events like "Gunman Kills 22 and Himself in Texas Cafeteria" as some kind of rational for gun vilification and restriction...
Suzanna Hupp was prohibited from carrying her defensive weapon into the cafe that day, and as a result had to watch both her mother and father get gunned down by the man who took their lives plus 20 others. If anyone has a right to dislike guns, it's her. But she doesn't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiTK4PR…
Instead she is simply angry that anti-gun activists took away her opportunity to stop the man from killing all those people, her parents included.
The same goes for the father of the girl killed this past Saturday; he isn't saying guns are the problem, and asking for them to be vilified: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj47lB1a-…
They both know it's not the tool, but the small number of deranged people who do these things. They would commit heinous crimes with other tools if they had no guns. But honest citizens with guns have the potential to stop these crimes before the police arrive -- 30 minutes too late.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it... darlin'
Suzanna Hupp was prohibited from carrying her defensive weapon into the cafe that day, and as a result had to watch both her mother and father get gunned down by the man who took their lives plus 20 others. If anyone has a right to dislike guns, it's her. But she doesn't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiTK4PR…
Instead she is simply angry that anti-gun activists took away her opportunity to stop the man from killing all those people, her parents included.
The same goes for the father of the girl killed this past Saturday; he isn't saying guns are the problem, and asking for them to be vilified: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj47lB1a-…
They both know it's not the tool, but the small number of deranged people who do these things. They would commit heinous crimes with other tools if they had no guns. But honest citizens with guns have the potential to stop these crimes before the police arrive -- 30 minutes too late.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it... darlin'
149
Paranoid Schizophrenia come to mind... in a country driven by both fear, aggression, belligerent egalitarianism...
150
Darlin.
When something is built specifically to kill people, you cant defend it. There were people at Saturdays event who carried guns but they chose to tackle the man instead.
But your choosing to nitpick for your own beliefs. I see that you just joined the Slog to comment on this section. Hopefully your not another right wing attack dog. Welcome to Slog.
DARLIN
When something is built specifically to kill people, you cant defend it. There were people at Saturdays event who carried guns but they chose to tackle the man instead.
But your choosing to nitpick for your own beliefs. I see that you just joined the Slog to comment on this section. Hopefully your not another right wing attack dog. Welcome to Slog.
DARLIN
151
@148: So what you're saying is that we should let anyone carry a gun anywhere...and magically only law-abiding citizens will do so?
And quit indemnifying guns. Sure, if someone's psychotic and deranged, they might make attempts on somebody's life with a different weapon if guns are unavailable. But you know what? Firearms are not only pretty damn lethal, but they're lethal at a distance and require fairly little physical strength to operate. There is no working defense against a firearm beyond taking cover, wearing body armor, or incapacitating the gunman. If I am attacked by a knife-wielding madman, for example, I can defend myself using my limbs and my clothing. It's not generally possible to block or dodge a bullet. Sure, people kill people, but guns are enablers in that regard. They make it easy and relatively clean to take a life.
And quit indemnifying guns. Sure, if someone's psychotic and deranged, they might make attempts on somebody's life with a different weapon if guns are unavailable. But you know what? Firearms are not only pretty damn lethal, but they're lethal at a distance and require fairly little physical strength to operate. There is no working defense against a firearm beyond taking cover, wearing body armor, or incapacitating the gunman. If I am attacked by a knife-wielding madman, for example, I can defend myself using my limbs and my clothing. It's not generally possible to block or dodge a bullet. Sure, people kill people, but guns are enablers in that regard. They make it easy and relatively clean to take a life.
153
@140" I can't believe Maddow even dares *mention* events like "Gunman Kills 22 and Himself in Texas Cafeteria" as some kind of rational for gun vilification and restriction... "
God, I know. Using 25 victims or under is sheer gall and rank exploitation on that harpie's part. Especially when you have two experts to cite on the advantages of the entire nation packing heat.
Wouldn't road rage and bar arguments be much more interesting if we all had a Glock at hand? And Super Bowl Sunday -- the murder over/under would keep bookies solvent for a year.
Maddow just doesn't get it.
God, I know. Using 25 victims or under is sheer gall and rank exploitation on that harpie's part. Especially when you have two experts to cite on the advantages of the entire nation packing heat.
Wouldn't road rage and bar arguments be much more interesting if we all had a Glock at hand? And Super Bowl Sunday -- the murder over/under would keep bookies solvent for a year.
Maddow just doesn't get it.
154
excellent.. and of course after thinking of how much bigger this map could be maybe america could use another' it get better' project..or somehing.
155
“The shooters politics are unknown.” — “Svensven”
But that doesn't stop you and the rest of the knee-jerkers from linking two unrelated things — a poster created by an ideological opponent, and an atrocity. Using a heightened event to erode civil rights in the name of safety seems rather tyrannical to me. When did that happen last? I remember. I'm sure you were bitching about it in the comments of some other story.
But that doesn't stop you and the rest of the knee-jerkers from linking two unrelated things — a poster created by an ideological opponent, and an atrocity. Using a heightened event to erode civil rights in the name of safety seems rather tyrannical to me. When did that happen last? I remember. I'm sure you were bitching about it in the comments of some other story.
156
There are several contexts to consider in the event that took place. Contexts of consideration stemming from the more personal tragedies that are exclusive to a few who would be the direct family and friends, where an emotional tie lives. We can easily imagine the context of the what took place expanding out to other American States, indeed to other parts of the globe. As it turns out the Tucson event has become a global one as all major events find themselves becoming in today's world. This map and the 'target' really have a lot to say, to me it talks of the American legal will in place that allows for gun ownership. As we already know, and this will never change, there will always be a tragedy when a gun is waiting for employment. This freedom to arms has already been argued by responsible, thoughtful and sober people and so the debates were the same. Whatever it's called the majority wins but now what I find unbelievable is that people now in this part of the world are, as I found out, considering some sort of legislation that will allow for University students and faculty alike to carry weapons at the campus. In everything that makes me who I am, I can not fathom that the concept of guns and faculty and that they even meet (HT014 and H2001). This poster has many things to say today as this event, which has become global, has not yet settles and is still healing in peoples hearts, minds and the media has still not finished chewing on it. I think the American people of course are the people who have to face this the most but it is their own children who the current generation is building a world for and that world is strongly influenced by the America on many others today so I hope they see their own child who died, a very young person, born on the day of 9/11 (a tragedy) and died on another. It's all our children that we borrow our world from, it's the future that we are borrowing, how will we leave it? Let's think about the future, our children when we use our politics because they are so important for the next future. My prayers go out to all those who died needlessly.
More...
158
I'd appreciate it a lot more were Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton's duel were to conform to slap fight rules rather than pistols. Or otherwise rules restricting one to shoot their adversary in the buttocks.
Then, at least one would be alive to concede that "yeah, maybe Mr. Burr had a good point, and I never would've agreed to it, but he shot me in the ass, man."
Then, at least one would be alive to concede that "yeah, maybe Mr. Burr had a good point, and I never would've agreed to it, but he shot me in the ass, man."
161
@ Tironius 155
"Using a heightened event to erode civil rights in the name of safety seems rather tyrannical to me."
So with so many guns around in permit-free Arizona, why were no counter-shots fired, and how many more guns would've made the outcome of this unfortunate event any better after the fact?
Remember. One of the rescuers came precariously close to shooting he who disarmed the shooter because he was holding the firearm upon arriving on the scene. Ignoring this fact would be a gross act of intellectual malefeasance at the convenience of making an egregious socially negligent point.
How could more people w/ guns in a situation of pure and absolute chaos possibly make this situation any better.
I think you may have to re-think your logic a little bit before you impulsively shoot your mouth off again, thinking in your own mind that you have an infallible irrefutable crux.
Burn.
"Using a heightened event to erode civil rights in the name of safety seems rather tyrannical to me."
So with so many guns around in permit-free Arizona, why were no counter-shots fired, and how many more guns would've made the outcome of this unfortunate event any better after the fact?
Remember. One of the rescuers came precariously close to shooting he who disarmed the shooter because he was holding the firearm upon arriving on the scene. Ignoring this fact would be a gross act of intellectual malefeasance at the convenience of making an egregious socially negligent point.
How could more people w/ guns in a situation of pure and absolute chaos possibly make this situation any better.
I think you may have to re-think your logic a little bit before you impulsively shoot your mouth off again, thinking in your own mind that you have an infallible irrefutable crux.
Burn.
162
At least when conservatives claim that violent movies and video games lead to real-life violence, there's evidence that the killers had ever even SEEN those movies and video games.
164
Andrew Jackson was the first president targetted by an assassin. A crazy house painter caught up with Jackson on Capitol Hill. Both pistols he used didn't fire and when teted later they worked fine. Jackson went after him with his cane.
166
Really, is all this needed? People have been killed and all you can do is try to be clever. Very Sad!
167
@155 "Eroding civil rights" would be telling someone she can't publicly disagree with another person's politics, or criticize a political opponent based on her ideology. That's not what's happening here. Palin, Beck, and their ilk are calling out hits, not to put too fine a point on it. When people on the left criticize their opponents, they use pesky things like that person's political platform, or sometimes they make fun of them personally, that's been known to happen...but when the right does it, they use metaphors for killing. Yes, we have free speech, but we also have a responsibility to not publicly call for the deaths of those with whom we disagree.
169
Thank you for including Dr. George Tiller. Other victims killed by anti abortion violence include: Dr. Gunn, Dr. Slepian, Dr. Britton, and James Barrett (as well as Shannon Lowery, Lee Ann Nichols, and Robert Sanderson, who were killed by bombs rather than guns). Dr. Gunn is particularly of interest, since he was shot after Operation Rescue released their "Wanted" posters, similar to Palin's crosshairs map.
But it's a small cover, and there's only so much room for murdered doctors.
But it's a small cover, and there's only so much room for murdered doctors.
170
"There are people I love who are conservative and others who are liberal, some who are libertarian and some who are socialists, there are people I love who are gay and others who are heterosexual. I love people of many beautiful hues and with many wonderfully unique accents. I call some people friends who hold doctorates and others who worked hard for their G.E.D’s. I love some people with loads of money and some without a penny. Among my friends are Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and others I’m sure I’ve left out. These friends of mine, who I’m so grateful for, have a lot more in common than they have to differentiate them… after all, we are all Americans and more importantly; we are all human beings. It’s all about the Golden Rule… a multitude of religions and common sense leads us to follow it, why don’t we?" More here: http://dad-on-the-run.blogspot.com/2011/…
171
Oops, limits how much of a link you can embed I guess. Well the site is dad-on-the-run.blogspot.com and the post is called "Aftermath of the Arizona shootings: A Lesson in the Golden Rule"
172
you and the tryrannical Puritains have much in common with eachother... you accuse women who scare you of witchcraft. Random acts are scary... we must blame someone so it is'nt so scary.
173
'The right to bear arms shall not infringed upon." Gee, seems pretty clear to me.
Maybe it is time to alter this amendment in light of a modern urban population. Or maybe not. If all of you hate guns so much, get up a petition drive and begin the Amendment process. Otherwise, we have the right to bear arms. Period.
Mr. Savage has the right to equate murderous scum like Dr. Death Tiller with great men like Lincoln, because we have freedom of expression. He has the right to equate criminals like Malcolm X with flawed but true leaders like JFK for the same reason. I don't get to limit the rights of deviant idiots like Savage to speak because I find these kinds of things offensive. I don't get to do this because we have agreed that the rights we have stand or fall together. Take away the right to bear arms arbitrarily, on the emotions of the moment, and what do you think will happen to criminal civil rights, or those of free expression?
Maybe it is time to alter this amendment in light of a modern urban population. Or maybe not. If all of you hate guns so much, get up a petition drive and begin the Amendment process. Otherwise, we have the right to bear arms. Period.
Mr. Savage has the right to equate murderous scum like Dr. Death Tiller with great men like Lincoln, because we have freedom of expression. He has the right to equate criminals like Malcolm X with flawed but true leaders like JFK for the same reason. I don't get to limit the rights of deviant idiots like Savage to speak because I find these kinds of things offensive. I don't get to do this because we have agreed that the rights we have stand or fall together. Take away the right to bear arms arbitrarily, on the emotions of the moment, and what do you think will happen to criminal civil rights, or those of free expression?
175
@143 and 150
No 'branch' of the government enabled gun laws. While there are 3 branches, the legislative, executive and judicial, none of these wrote the 2nd Amendment, which was done by the Constitutional Convention of 1789.
Oh, you mean 'party?' You seem confused. Parties are not extra-governmental. For instance, the Democrat party is the one which is irrational, unable to read the Constituiton and reality challenged.
Yes, guns are made to kill. Not necessarily people, though some are designed for that, but they are designed to be lethal. There are times when this is necessary, not evil. For instance, Chamberlain did a bang up job talking Hitler out of his agressions in Europe without a shot fired! Oh....wait....
I get that you hate guns. May I make a suggestion? Don't buy one. I don't own one because I don't hunt and do have small children. The means of securing the weapon from small hands while making it available to defend my home aren't compatible. At any rate, unlike the left, I don't life in fear. I don't worry about the tiny chance that a burglar might first break into my home, and second, not run away when I holler at him while holding my Louisville slugger. My brother on the other hand owns a hunting rifle and a pistol, both for hunting. Both are in a safe when not being used for that purpose, as is true of all his friends who hunt.
This myth the left has that gun control will have any effect on violence whatever lacks any data to support it. It lacks any reasonable theory to support it. It is a stupid ploy, as most things the left dreams up, without form or substance.
No 'branch' of the government enabled gun laws. While there are 3 branches, the legislative, executive and judicial, none of these wrote the 2nd Amendment, which was done by the Constitutional Convention of 1789.
Oh, you mean 'party?' You seem confused. Parties are not extra-governmental. For instance, the Democrat party is the one which is irrational, unable to read the Constituiton and reality challenged.
Yes, guns are made to kill. Not necessarily people, though some are designed for that, but they are designed to be lethal. There are times when this is necessary, not evil. For instance, Chamberlain did a bang up job talking Hitler out of his agressions in Europe without a shot fired! Oh....wait....
I get that you hate guns. May I make a suggestion? Don't buy one. I don't own one because I don't hunt and do have small children. The means of securing the weapon from small hands while making it available to defend my home aren't compatible. At any rate, unlike the left, I don't life in fear. I don't worry about the tiny chance that a burglar might first break into my home, and second, not run away when I holler at him while holding my Louisville slugger. My brother on the other hand owns a hunting rifle and a pistol, both for hunting. Both are in a safe when not being used for that purpose, as is true of all his friends who hunt.
This myth the left has that gun control will have any effect on violence whatever lacks any data to support it. It lacks any reasonable theory to support it. It is a stupid ploy, as most things the left dreams up, without form or substance.
176
The right to bear arms thing - I say that ammunition is the thing that should be very tightly controlled. bear all the arms you want, roll your own ammo, no problem.
buy cop killer bullets or any other ammo, better be ready to jump alot of hoops.
buy cop killer bullets or any other ammo, better be ready to jump alot of hoops.
177
@175: "This myth the left has that gun control will have any effect on violence whatever lacks any data to support it."
Really? Hm. Some figures from the Canadian Firearms Centre (now the Canadian Firearms Program):
In 2000, there were an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which were restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there were approximately 222 million firearms including 76 million handguns. Based on population, the per capita rate of gun ownership in general was three times as high in the US. Looking only at restricted firearms/handguns, the per capita rate of ownership was almost seven times as high in the US.
For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
Now correlation is not causation, many factors affect crime rates and gun crime rates, etc. The above few data points are not absolutely conclusive, of course. But they do exist. These and other figures from other countries exist, and they can certainly support the proposal that gun control will have an effect on violence.
See, it can actually be helpful to have a non-American perspective in a discussion. It helps prevent you making ridiculous statements - like that there is no data to support gun control having an impact on violence. (And for the record, I don't hate guns. One of those 1.2 million restricted weapons in Canada in 2000 was mine, along with three of the long guns.)
Lastly, this statement is just ludicrous: "unlike the left, I don't life in fear. I don't worry about the tiny chance that a burglar might first break into my home, and second, not run away." Are you kidding me? "I must own a handgun to protect my property from criminals" is a standard right-wing trope. The fear that - absent liberal access to hand guns - ravaging meth addicts will invade one's home is almost entirely a US right-wing phenomenon.
More...
Really? Hm. Some figures from the Canadian Firearms Centre (now the Canadian Firearms Program):
In 2000, there were an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which were restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there were approximately 222 million firearms including 76 million handguns. Based on population, the per capita rate of gun ownership in general was three times as high in the US. Looking only at restricted firearms/handguns, the per capita rate of ownership was almost seven times as high in the US.
For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
Now correlation is not causation, many factors affect crime rates and gun crime rates, etc. The above few data points are not absolutely conclusive, of course. But they do exist. These and other figures from other countries exist, and they can certainly support the proposal that gun control will have an effect on violence.
See, it can actually be helpful to have a non-American perspective in a discussion. It helps prevent you making ridiculous statements - like that there is no data to support gun control having an impact on violence. (And for the record, I don't hate guns. One of those 1.2 million restricted weapons in Canada in 2000 was mine, along with three of the long guns.)
Lastly, this statement is just ludicrous: "unlike the left, I don't life in fear. I don't worry about the tiny chance that a burglar might first break into my home, and second, not run away." Are you kidding me? "I must own a handgun to protect my property from criminals" is a standard right-wing trope. The fear that - absent liberal access to hand guns - ravaging meth addicts will invade one's home is almost entirely a US right-wing phenomenon.
178
Sorry, I still get back to this-
Please show how the education or mental health care programs that carefully are not named, but which Republicans have been accused of cruelly withholding from Mr. Loughner contributed to his acts.
Please show the studies which show that countries which once had legal guns (and presumably have many millions of them in private hands now) has any success at limiting them within the law.
Please, for God's sake pretty please, show how the people on Mr. Savages asanine magazine cover have a single thing in common. Gun deaths of-what, public figures? So, we've had 18 or 20 murders of public figures accross the spectrum from politics to entertainment to murderers like George Tiller or criminals like Malcolm X. For 220 years of having legal guns I'd hardly call that compelling.
In fact, given the 43 times power has been transferred from execcutive to exectutive (the number of presidents, not presidential elections) I'd say that's a good indicator of how non-violent a culture we are. A statistically insignificant number of deaths due to religion, (excluding the terrorist deaths on 9-11 I am assured were absolutely NOT comitted by 'real' Muslims, who apparently only sit in circles and peacefully sing interfaith versions of Kumbaya. After this of course, they invite their many Jewish friends to join them for a and discuss the situation in Palestine in a loving and non judgemental way) and you have the two primary causes of violence causing very little violence.
So you know what Savage? I recomend rolling your magazine up and placing it somewhere biologically specific and unpleasant. Never mind, a deviant like you would enjoy that.
Please show how the education or mental health care programs that carefully are not named, but which Republicans have been accused of cruelly withholding from Mr. Loughner contributed to his acts.
Please show the studies which show that countries which once had legal guns (and presumably have many millions of them in private hands now) has any success at limiting them within the law.
Please, for God's sake pretty please, show how the people on Mr. Savages asanine magazine cover have a single thing in common. Gun deaths of-what, public figures? So, we've had 18 or 20 murders of public figures accross the spectrum from politics to entertainment to murderers like George Tiller or criminals like Malcolm X. For 220 years of having legal guns I'd hardly call that compelling.
In fact, given the 43 times power has been transferred from execcutive to exectutive (the number of presidents, not presidential elections) I'd say that's a good indicator of how non-violent a culture we are. A statistically insignificant number of deaths due to religion, (excluding the terrorist deaths on 9-11 I am assured were absolutely NOT comitted by 'real' Muslims, who apparently only sit in circles and peacefully sing interfaith versions of Kumbaya. After this of course, they invite their many Jewish friends to join them for a and discuss the situation in Palestine in a loving and non judgemental way) and you have the two primary causes of violence causing very little violence.
So you know what Savage? I recomend rolling your magazine up and placing it somewhere biologically specific and unpleasant. Never mind, a deviant like you would enjoy that.
179
For goodness sake, BB,
You even state that none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence.
I could say that Canada has 1.4 maple trees per citizen, who use these for maple syrup. Canada therefore has lower gun violence because they eat syrup, and we should plant more sugar maples in the States.
And really, if you don't like our gun laws, just don't buy a gun. Easy, isn't it? Or you could get your representative....Oh, forgot, you're not a US citiizen so it really isn't your business. At all. Even a little bit.
You even state that none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence.
I could say that Canada has 1.4 maple trees per citizen, who use these for maple syrup. Canada therefore has lower gun violence because they eat syrup, and we should plant more sugar maples in the States.
And really, if you don't like our gun laws, just don't buy a gun. Easy, isn't it? Or you could get your representative....Oh, forgot, you're not a US citiizen so it really isn't your business. At all. Even a little bit.
180
SB - Are you illiterate?
Seriously, are you?
"You even state that none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence."
Do I? Where? When I said "Now correlation is not causation, many factors affect crime rates and gun crime rates, etc. The above few data points are not absolutely conclusive, of course." There? Hint: that is called HONESTY. It is the recognition of the limits of the data that I quoted, and recognition that the situation vis-a-vis gun ownership and gun violence is COMPLEX - not that the link is absent.
How can you honestly read a statistic that states "For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada." and then claim that "none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence." It's a statistic ABOUT THE RATE OF GUN VIOLENCE.
Jesus H. Christ. Disagree, argue, make your own points, but don't think you can just lie about what someone else has said.
And please, stop with the "it's none of your business." It doesn't make you any more convincing.
Seriously, are you?
"You even state that none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence."
Do I? Where? When I said "Now correlation is not causation, many factors affect crime rates and gun crime rates, etc. The above few data points are not absolutely conclusive, of course." There? Hint: that is called HONESTY. It is the recognition of the limits of the data that I quoted, and recognition that the situation vis-a-vis gun ownership and gun violence is COMPLEX - not that the link is absent.
How can you honestly read a statistic that states "For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada." and then claim that "none of the 'data points' you mention have any specific link to gun violence." It's a statistic ABOUT THE RATE OF GUN VIOLENCE.
Jesus H. Christ. Disagree, argue, make your own points, but don't think you can just lie about what someone else has said.
And please, stop with the "it's none of your business." It doesn't make you any more convincing.
182
@114 -Thank you! This cover gets golf claps for being clever and reactionary, but the list they've compiled is arbitrary at best, complete nonsense at worst.
183
Oh come on, BB
Convincing? Maybe not. But it's true. It really isn't your business. National health care is a stupid way to deliver medical care to patients, for instance. But taxpaying citizens in Canada support it, so I mind my own business about it. I'm not a citizen of Italy and while I own a house there, I don't interfere in local politics while spending time at the house. It simply isn't my business that the socialist system in force has ruined the work ethic of the Italian people. 800 or 900 years ago the hills around the village in which our house was located were laced with pathways of cut and laid stone to link the villages. After all these centuries the most of these paths are still functional. Think mini Roman road in construction technique, with lovely arched stone bridges over streams in the middle of the forest. Foot paths and log bridges would have served, but the idea of doing a thing right as the only possible way to do it existed in Italy at that time. Contrasted to that, a friend had remodel work done recently on their home next door to ours. I am a former contractor, and knew the job should have taken at most 3 months. The real time? A bit over a year, and charged as though the job should have taken a year. Italians have many endearing traits, and some fun ones and many admirable ones. Work ethic is absolutely not one of any of these. It is a pain in the rear to get my mail while there, since the civil servants at the post office are worse than useless. Train service is frequently interrupted by meaningless strikes which the strikers could not tell you the purpose of, and which never accomplish anything. Their socialist medical system is a joke and a shame, with not even the recourse of malpractice lawsuits to alleviate it. Barring actual emergencies no member of my family will ever visit an Italian health care facility. But all this is the business of the Italians. I venture no opinion while there, and do so now only to prove a point. Their country, their business.
What you wrote was in fact as I described it. Taking a few numbers about gun ownership and gun violence, admitting that corellation is not causation, and expecting me to think that Canadian gun laws are the sole reason for the difference in violence rates is not reasonable. You can write statistics all day, but unless you can prove causation between them, at the end of the day you've not proven one thing.
Like any legal form, the devil is in the details, but the bare concept of changing the 2nd Amendment to fit current needs isn't bothersome to me. It's the taking of liberties without that due process which bothers me.
More...
Convincing? Maybe not. But it's true. It really isn't your business. National health care is a stupid way to deliver medical care to patients, for instance. But taxpaying citizens in Canada support it, so I mind my own business about it. I'm not a citizen of Italy and while I own a house there, I don't interfere in local politics while spending time at the house. It simply isn't my business that the socialist system in force has ruined the work ethic of the Italian people. 800 or 900 years ago the hills around the village in which our house was located were laced with pathways of cut and laid stone to link the villages. After all these centuries the most of these paths are still functional. Think mini Roman road in construction technique, with lovely arched stone bridges over streams in the middle of the forest. Foot paths and log bridges would have served, but the idea of doing a thing right as the only possible way to do it existed in Italy at that time. Contrasted to that, a friend had remodel work done recently on their home next door to ours. I am a former contractor, and knew the job should have taken at most 3 months. The real time? A bit over a year, and charged as though the job should have taken a year. Italians have many endearing traits, and some fun ones and many admirable ones. Work ethic is absolutely not one of any of these. It is a pain in the rear to get my mail while there, since the civil servants at the post office are worse than useless. Train service is frequently interrupted by meaningless strikes which the strikers could not tell you the purpose of, and which never accomplish anything. Their socialist medical system is a joke and a shame, with not even the recourse of malpractice lawsuits to alleviate it. Barring actual emergencies no member of my family will ever visit an Italian health care facility. But all this is the business of the Italians. I venture no opinion while there, and do so now only to prove a point. Their country, their business.
What you wrote was in fact as I described it. Taking a few numbers about gun ownership and gun violence, admitting that corellation is not causation, and expecting me to think that Canadian gun laws are the sole reason for the difference in violence rates is not reasonable. You can write statistics all day, but unless you can prove causation between them, at the end of the day you've not proven one thing.
Like any legal form, the devil is in the details, but the bare concept of changing the 2nd Amendment to fit current needs isn't bothersome to me. It's the taking of liberties without that due process which bothers me.
184
I'll try to use smaller words.
You said: "This myth the left has that gun control will have any effect on violence whatever lacks any data to support it."
I provided data that can be used to support it.
You are wrong.
Note: I am not trying to prove the connection. As I have stated, that is a very complex question. I am simply - and successfully - demonstrating that data exists to support a connect.
But your mind is made up, and closed - on this as on so many other issues. It must be reassuring not to have to think about the complexities of things - the complexities of health care service, for example - instead falling back on simple tropes.
You said: "This myth the left has that gun control will have any effect on violence whatever lacks any data to support it."
I provided data that can be used to support it.
You are wrong.
Note: I am not trying to prove the connection. As I have stated, that is a very complex question. I am simply - and successfully - demonstrating that data exists to support a connect.
But your mind is made up, and closed - on this as on so many other issues. It must be reassuring not to have to think about the complexities of things - the complexities of health care service, for example - instead falling back on simple tropes.
185
@183: It's telling that when someone has you beat in an argument, you huffily tell them that since they live on the other side of the border, it's none of their business and that they shouldn't be discussing it with you.
187
Brilliant... if facts are irrelevant. Brilliant... if you think a man, who was so deranged that a political ad can drive him to murder, wasn't also motivated by a very similar poster that actually appeared just before his harassment of Gifford. You ignorant, deceitful media chumps like to say there's a difference between the Democrat poster and Palin poster. Really? If someone is so weak of mind that a poster can move them to slaughter, do you really think it matters whether or not they're looking at crosshairs or a bullseye?
Yeah... it's brilliant, if you're trying to rewrite history and exploit a tragic murder to advance your politics. Sick shit.
There isn't a shred of evidence that says this guy was anything other than whack job. Again, it's brilliant if you don't care about the truth and if you're twisted enough to use murder for politics.
Yeah... it's brilliant, if you're trying to rewrite history and exploit a tragic murder to advance your politics. Sick shit.
There isn't a shred of evidence that says this guy was anything other than whack job. Again, it's brilliant if you don't care about the truth and if you're twisted enough to use murder for politics.
189
@186
Nah. VL is pretty good at showing his youth. He doesn't need my help for the average reader to spot it.
mean, apparently someone who proves something by not proving it has me beat, in his estimation. Apparently the Canucks have a deep impact put upon them by our gun laws, though no-one has bothered to point out why, exactly. Which entitles them to help us determine those laws, if I'm reading the boy correctly. Apparently at whatever university he attends providing anecdotal or correlative data suffices to prove a point, without the need for providing links between the effect of gun violence and the supposed cause of what BB regards as lax gun laws.
Gee, hope it isn't law or one of the sciences the lad is studying....
Seems a bright enough kid though. Well...for a liberal.
Nah. VL is pretty good at showing his youth. He doesn't need my help for the average reader to spot it.
mean, apparently someone who proves something by not proving it has me beat, in his estimation. Apparently the Canucks have a deep impact put upon them by our gun laws, though no-one has bothered to point out why, exactly. Which entitles them to help us determine those laws, if I'm reading the boy correctly. Apparently at whatever university he attends providing anecdotal or correlative data suffices to prove a point, without the need for providing links between the effect of gun violence and the supposed cause of what BB regards as lax gun laws.
Gee, hope it isn't law or one of the sciences the lad is studying....
Seems a bright enough kid though. Well...for a liberal.
190
Actually, I've got an idea for VL's future career. He could go to law school, finish his degree, and practice law for about 30 seconds in a nominal position a friend gave him at a law firm. He could teach law at a university while doing some vaguely defined thing called 'community organizing.' Then he could run for Illinois state elected office. Once in office he could totally ignore his duties to his constituency, and run for federal office. Then he could ignore those duties (hint, vote 'present' a lot) and run for president. Without any credentials but a smooth speaking style and minority status, with no experience or professional skills, he too could be president of the United States. Somehow, I think someone already did that pretty recently though... No, it's gone. I could have sworn some president did exactly this to get into office though....
Oh well, by the time VL reaches the required age to run for president most of the electorate will have forgotten how our woefully underqualified president got into office. He could run the same playbook, I guess, by then.
Oh well, by the time VL reaches the required age to run for president most of the electorate will have forgotten how our woefully underqualified president got into office. He could run the same playbook, I guess, by then.
191
You might want to print a few extra copies of this issue. I have requests to bring back multiple copies to Utah and to send some to my poor Dem friends and relatives in AZ. Might actually have to check a bag this time.....
192
@190: Careful there! Your sheet is showing. Seattleblues, homophobia, AND racism in a tidy little package.
193
@189: Okay, calm the fuck down.
You argued that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that tighter gun laws lead to lower gun crime rates. Backyard Bombardier presented some evidence that does support that hypothesis, and admitted that while it does so, it does not do so conclusively. You insisted that because the evidence was not cut-and-dried beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof of the hypothesis, it was invalid. Backyard Bombardier pointed out his qualifier concerning the delicate relationship between correlation and causation and reiterated that the evidence did support (if not prove to be true) his statement. You then proceeded to tell a socialism horror story, skirt around responding to the point previously made, and imply that Backyard Bombardier should keep his big Canuck nose out of it, eh? I'm not saying that the evidence proves Backyard Bombardier's hypothesis correct; I'm just agreeing with him that, in contradiction to your yammering against it, it is supported by the evidence that he provided.
Problem?
You argued that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that tighter gun laws lead to lower gun crime rates. Backyard Bombardier presented some evidence that does support that hypothesis, and admitted that while it does so, it does not do so conclusively. You insisted that because the evidence was not cut-and-dried beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt proof of the hypothesis, it was invalid. Backyard Bombardier pointed out his qualifier concerning the delicate relationship between correlation and causation and reiterated that the evidence did support (if not prove to be true) his statement. You then proceeded to tell a socialism horror story, skirt around responding to the point previously made, and imply that Backyard Bombardier should keep his big Canuck nose out of it, eh? I'm not saying that the evidence proves Backyard Bombardier's hypothesis correct; I'm just agreeing with him that, in contradiction to your yammering against it, it is supported by the evidence that he provided.
Problem?
194
@189, 190: Just for the record, I'm currently an undergraduate at the University of Chicago. (It's a grand old school, on par with the Ivy League colleges but a lot less pompous. Our biggest pride is the 87 Nobel Laureates who have either taught or studied at our venerable institution. Our biggest pet peeve is being confused with the University of Illinois in Chicago.) I'm currently pursuing a BIOS/GEOS double major, and I'm hoping to qualify for a specialization in ecology and evolution.
I was going to correct you on your implications concerning Barack Obama, but then I realized that perhaps I wasn't feeling quite as charitable as I had previously thought. Then I was going to simply tell you that you're wrong, but it would be unethical to expect you to simply take my word for it. So I'll just encourage you to quit being a little bitch and only talk about issues on which you are decently informed.
I'm not going to try to deny that I show my youth; I'll elaborate on my arguments with as many image macros as I want, come hell and/or high water. I'm more concerned about how you show your age; you epitomize the hidebound, set-in-his-ways old geezer who bitches endlessly about how the world isn't what it used to be, and who constantly reminds us of the colossal metaphorical stick up his ass.
I was going to correct you on your implications concerning Barack Obama, but then I realized that perhaps I wasn't feeling quite as charitable as I had previously thought. Then I was going to simply tell you that you're wrong, but it would be unethical to expect you to simply take my word for it. So I'll just encourage you to quit being a little bitch and only talk about issues on which you are decently informed.
I'm not going to try to deny that I show my youth; I'll elaborate on my arguments with as many image macros as I want, come hell and/or high water. I'm more concerned about how you show your age; you epitomize the hidebound, set-in-his-ways old geezer who bitches endlessly about how the world isn't what it used to be, and who constantly reminds us of the colossal metaphorical stick up his ass.
195
Holy crap, Seattleblues really is the full meal deal, supersized. Homophobic AND a political and social leotard...am now firmly convinced he is Glenn Beck.
196
@195
A 'political and social leotard?' Must be a Canadian thing, eh?. Anyway the reference goes over my head. Leopard? Leonard? Nope, that doesn't make sense either. Oh well.
Glenn Beck? That's really a low blow. I've listened to him once or twice. Don't care for the man, with his end of the world hysteria and tendency to make the inherently rational point of view of any conservative look as hysterical as he is. Not that he likely believes much that he says, it just makes him buckets of money to encourage self righteous outrage in people like you. I'd bet half or better of his audience is made up of far left loonies frothing at the mouth at his every utterance.
@192
Two swings and two strikes. I neither fear not hate homosexuals. Homophobia implies both. In fact, I haven't mentioned homosexuality in this thread. I mentioned that our valiant empty suit of a president is a minority, which somehow you take as racist? Wow, the bar for racism is pretty low these days, isn't it? Call someone who is a minority a minority and it's a slam dunk, apparently. You know, us folks in th real world get a bit tired of any and all criticism of your sainted one, the messiah, the holy progressive great one, as racism. Grow up.
A 'political and social leotard?' Must be a Canadian thing, eh?. Anyway the reference goes over my head. Leopard? Leonard? Nope, that doesn't make sense either. Oh well.
Glenn Beck? That's really a low blow. I've listened to him once or twice. Don't care for the man, with his end of the world hysteria and tendency to make the inherently rational point of view of any conservative look as hysterical as he is. Not that he likely believes much that he says, it just makes him buckets of money to encourage self righteous outrage in people like you. I'd bet half or better of his audience is made up of far left loonies frothing at the mouth at his every utterance.
@192
Two swings and two strikes. I neither fear not hate homosexuals. Homophobia implies both. In fact, I haven't mentioned homosexuality in this thread. I mentioned that our valiant empty suit of a president is a minority, which somehow you take as racist? Wow, the bar for racism is pretty low these days, isn't it? Call someone who is a minority a minority and it's a slam dunk, apparently. You know, us folks in th real world get a bit tired of any and all criticism of your sainted one, the messiah, the holy progressive great one, as racism. Grow up.
199
Oh and in case you're curious Seattleblues, referring to gays as "deviant" is pretty fucking homophobic.
Maybe you didn't get that memo from REAL LIFE.
Maybe you didn't get that memo from REAL LIFE.
200
@177: "I must own a handgun to protect my property from criminals" is a standard right-wing trope. The fear that - absent liberal access to hand guns - ravaging meth addicts will invade one's home is almost entirely a US right-wing phenomenon.
You got that only half right. The other reason is also to protect your large and expensive arsenal of guns.
As one of my gun-nut relatives (with a closet-sized safe that is insufficient to hold all his guns, worth tens of thousands of dollars) apparently never understood, is that it's also pretty effective to start by putting a lock on your door.
Not only was his CCW weapon in an unsecured kitchen drawer, said drawer was also adjacent to said unlocked back door. A piss-drunk guy accidentally wandered into his house and started trying to cook some food in the middle of the night. Unable to reach his gun on the other side of the kitchen (thank goodness) he broke a chair over the guy and knocked him out cold.
Take-away lesson from years of NRA propaganda?
Options:
1) BUY A FUCKING LOCKING DOOR
2) Don't leave a gun where anyone can just walk in and take it
3) Have a basic alarm system
4) Make sure to keep an extra gun in your bedroom as well as in the kitchen, in case the perp manages to access one of your guns
Correct answer?
#4, obviously. If everyone had a gun, then the world would be calm and peaceful, I'm told.
Because clearly, there are busloads of home-invaders and rapists just WAITING to break into the home of some poor hillbilly carpenter who owns numerous dogs, and numerous guns... and...I guess rape him or something? Steal his collections of penthouse VHS tapes and spent .45 casings?
More...
You got that only half right. The other reason is also to protect your large and expensive arsenal of guns.
As one of my gun-nut relatives (with a closet-sized safe that is insufficient to hold all his guns, worth tens of thousands of dollars) apparently never understood, is that it's also pretty effective to start by putting a lock on your door.
Not only was his CCW weapon in an unsecured kitchen drawer, said drawer was also adjacent to said unlocked back door. A piss-drunk guy accidentally wandered into his house and started trying to cook some food in the middle of the night. Unable to reach his gun on the other side of the kitchen (thank goodness) he broke a chair over the guy and knocked him out cold.
Take-away lesson from years of NRA propaganda?
Options:
1) BUY A FUCKING LOCKING DOOR
2) Don't leave a gun where anyone can just walk in and take it
3) Have a basic alarm system
4) Make sure to keep an extra gun in your bedroom as well as in the kitchen, in case the perp manages to access one of your guns
Correct answer?
#4, obviously. If everyone had a gun, then the world would be calm and peaceful, I'm told.
Because clearly, there are busloads of home-invaders and rapists just WAITING to break into the home of some poor hillbilly carpenter who owns numerous dogs, and numerous guns... and...I guess rape him or something? Steal his collections of penthouse VHS tapes and spent .45 casings?
201
@173: 'The right to bear arms shall not infringed upon." Gee, seems pretty clear to me.
It would be, if that's what it said. Which of course it doesn't.
The second amendment is only one sentence, one would think you fucktards could remember ONE fucking sentence and at least quote it half-way decently:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It would be, if that's what it said. Which of course it doesn't.
The second amendment is only one sentence, one would think you fucktards could remember ONE fucking sentence and at least quote it half-way decently:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
204
Seattleblues even had trouble with my comments and all he had to do was google the facts. Papa Reagan closed our asylums in favor of tax cuts.......seems rather clear to me.
205
@175 Sweety i understand that it's very hard for you so i'll keep it simple. A branch of politics refers to our elected representatives you dumbshit. If i referenced a branch of goverment, then you would have had an argument. You homophobic asshat.
206
this is the most level-headed analysis of the whole Palin crosshairs/blood libel hulaballoo i have heard thus far:
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/20…
(9:00 into part 1)
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/20…
(9:00 into part 1)
207
@Seattleblues, sorry that I'm late to the disco, but you have repeatedly espoused homophobic and racist views. Many times here on Slog you have referred to or suggested that homosexuality is a "choice", "deviant", or inherently "destructive"- all of which is simply false. Over and over, you have posited that it is right to legislate against Marriage Equality (no doubt you will groan at that term), despite your arguments being deeply rooted in your religious beliefs alone, which have no place in law. Your racism manifests not simply in your positions on immigration, but also any time you open your mouth on the US's military role in the world. The history you present enormously distorts Western Expansion and our treatment of the Native American peoples, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the US's long history of colonialism. The American Exceptionalism you subscribe to denigrates not only the many peoples we have disenfranchised, but also our own culture, which is condemned to repeat the past should we refuse to recall and learn from the past. Perhaps your decades as a white, Christian, straight, cis-male, splitting his time between Seattle and his Italian home, have left you blind as to how enormously privileged you are, and made it near impossible for you to see how your comments are racist and homophobic, even though you don't feel particularly racist or homophobic in making them. I'm sorry if you see it differently, but a few of us on Slog have a bit of experience with marginalization and have heard your bullshit maybe once or twice before. I won't ask you to stop being an asshole (assholery is requisite to Slog), but maybe check your privilege and stop telling the Canadians here that they should butt out. Not infrequently do you condescend to call us and our beliefs immature, but to suggest that someone is disqualified from discussing US gun regulations because they are not American is incredibly juvenile, especially considering we clearly have something to learn from the rest of the industrialized world that does not have our insane gun violence issues.
More...
209
samktg FTW.
Personally I'm waiting for Seattleblues to bring up that American women are all selfish, mean and materialistic, which is why he looked elsewhere for a spouse since foreign women are all loving, traditional and family oriented. Except Canadians. Then he'll be three for three and I'll win Wingnut Bingo.
Personally I'm waiting for Seattleblues to bring up that American women are all selfish, mean and materialistic, which is why he looked elsewhere for a spouse since foreign women are all loving, traditional and family oriented. Except Canadians. Then he'll be three for three and I'll win Wingnut Bingo.
210
Lissa
Well he must be peeved that you American women don't act like those submissive Asian ladies.
Well he must be peeved that you American women don't act like those submissive Asian ladies.
212
Don't take up baseball, Lissa, you can't seem to do anything but swing and miss.
I've got no problem with American ladies as friends or co-workers or fellow parishioners. But yes, I wanted a wife who shared my values, shocking as that might seem. As incomprehensible as it may seem to a liberal, when I promised 'til death do us part' I put my word and integrity into the 'I do.' I made my wife a promise I intend to keep, come hell or high water. For me marriage isn't a pleasant diversion, as with most lefties. For me it is the hub around which my life revolves. The income I make, I make for my wife and children. The way I treat people wherever I go, in business or at church or in a restaurant, reflects on them. Raising our children to become capable adults who realize their potential in life is the single most important task my wife and I will ever have. Finding an American woman who shares these values is possible, I suppose, but it would be like mining for gold. Lot's of dirt and digging, with little predictable result.
The left is about instant gratification and personal happiness. The cost to your families or your friends or your society aren't important so long as you have gratified the whim of the moment. Lliberals don't understand that happiness is a by-product. Do the right things, fulfill your obligations, find a job you enjoy and a spouse you love and put your whole heart into them, and happiness will come. Pursue happiness for it's own sake and you'll perpetually be trying to find the gold at rainbows end.
I've got no problem with American ladies as friends or co-workers or fellow parishioners. But yes, I wanted a wife who shared my values, shocking as that might seem. As incomprehensible as it may seem to a liberal, when I promised 'til death do us part' I put my word and integrity into the 'I do.' I made my wife a promise I intend to keep, come hell or high water. For me marriage isn't a pleasant diversion, as with most lefties. For me it is the hub around which my life revolves. The income I make, I make for my wife and children. The way I treat people wherever I go, in business or at church or in a restaurant, reflects on them. Raising our children to become capable adults who realize their potential in life is the single most important task my wife and I will ever have. Finding an American woman who shares these values is possible, I suppose, but it would be like mining for gold. Lot's of dirt and digging, with little predictable result.
The left is about instant gratification and personal happiness. The cost to your families or your friends or your society aren't important so long as you have gratified the whim of the moment. Lliberals don't understand that happiness is a by-product. Do the right things, fulfill your obligations, find a job you enjoy and a spouse you love and put your whole heart into them, and happiness will come. Pursue happiness for it's own sake and you'll perpetually be trying to find the gold at rainbows end.
213
RE 204
Oh, see, I missed the link you brought up, Cupcake. You know, the one where Jared Loughner was comitted but we didn't have space in assylums? Or the one where he had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, but treatment was stopped because the Republicans cut funding? Wait, you didn't make that link? Interesting.
I also missed the point where you justify gun control without alteration of the 2nd Amendment, Dearie, and how it negatively impacts every other right to alter this one arbitrarily. You have the right to be a moron and express that fact clearly. I have the right, though I choose not to exercise it at present, to bear arms. If I suborn your right, I suborn mine right along with it, and vice versa.
Honey, I also missed the connection between all legislators from 1789 on and the epubllican party. Oddly, I recall a few occasions when Democrats controlled Congress. It wouldn't matter anymore anyway, as the Supreme Court just recently explicitly stated that the right to bear arms was an individual one which could not be abridged. Way back when you were stoned in civics class, you probably missed the bit about judicial review and checks and balances and all that. Oh well.
As you might have gathered, there are not many people in this world to whom I grant the familiar forms, like Sweety. You ain't one of them, lefty.
Oh, see, I missed the link you brought up, Cupcake. You know, the one where Jared Loughner was comitted but we didn't have space in assylums? Or the one where he had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, but treatment was stopped because the Republicans cut funding? Wait, you didn't make that link? Interesting.
I also missed the point where you justify gun control without alteration of the 2nd Amendment, Dearie, and how it negatively impacts every other right to alter this one arbitrarily. You have the right to be a moron and express that fact clearly. I have the right, though I choose not to exercise it at present, to bear arms. If I suborn your right, I suborn mine right along with it, and vice versa.
Honey, I also missed the connection between all legislators from 1789 on and the epubllican party. Oddly, I recall a few occasions when Democrats controlled Congress. It wouldn't matter anymore anyway, as the Supreme Court just recently explicitly stated that the right to bear arms was an individual one which could not be abridged. Way back when you were stoned in civics class, you probably missed the bit about judicial review and checks and balances and all that. Oh well.
As you might have gathered, there are not many people in this world to whom I grant the familiar forms, like Sweety. You ain't one of them, lefty.
214
Homophobia- " irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"
Whew, I'm relieved. For a while I was beginning to worry that calling a spade a spade was homophobia. Representing a tiny minority of our population homosexuality is in fact deviant by definition. Representing a total disconnect with the biological point and purpose of human sexuality it is deviant by definition. Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive.
I repeatedly write that self destructive behavior is not ground for legislation against that behavior. I repeatedly write that what a deviant does in their own bedroom with consenting adults is their business. I repeatedly write that discrimination based on homosexuality isn't acceptable.
So, to sum up. I don't fear homosexuals, or indeed care what they do in private. I don't wish to discriminate against them. How exactly am I homophobic?
See how easy life is when you see reality as, well, reality.
Racism- "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race'
Geez, what a good day. Two slanders against my character cleared up in one fell swoop. I don't anywhere express derision for any ethnic or racial type. I think my country and culture pretty decent, a generally good influence on the world, and within historical context relatively well behaved historically. In your view, this makes me racist?
You dislike your country, what it stands for, and your revisionist view of history suggests appalling past behavior. From within this fairly depressing world view anyone with a slightly more healthy view of his own culture might seem racist, I guess. Kind of. Well, only if you don't understand the word 'racist.' Actually, you DO realize that 'American' is not a racial term, don't you?
More...
Whew, I'm relieved. For a while I was beginning to worry that calling a spade a spade was homophobia. Representing a tiny minority of our population homosexuality is in fact deviant by definition. Representing a total disconnect with the biological point and purpose of human sexuality it is deviant by definition. Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive.
I repeatedly write that self destructive behavior is not ground for legislation against that behavior. I repeatedly write that what a deviant does in their own bedroom with consenting adults is their business. I repeatedly write that discrimination based on homosexuality isn't acceptable.
So, to sum up. I don't fear homosexuals, or indeed care what they do in private. I don't wish to discriminate against them. How exactly am I homophobic?
See how easy life is when you see reality as, well, reality.
Racism- "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race'
Geez, what a good day. Two slanders against my character cleared up in one fell swoop. I don't anywhere express derision for any ethnic or racial type. I think my country and culture pretty decent, a generally good influence on the world, and within historical context relatively well behaved historically. In your view, this makes me racist?
You dislike your country, what it stands for, and your revisionist view of history suggests appalling past behavior. From within this fairly depressing world view anyone with a slightly more healthy view of his own culture might seem racist, I guess. Kind of. Well, only if you don't understand the word 'racist.' Actually, you DO realize that 'American' is not a racial term, don't you?
216
@209: "Personally I'm waiting for Seattleblues to bring up that American women are all selfish, mean and materialistic, which is why he looked elsewhere for a spouse."
@212: "Finding an American woman who shares these values is possible, I suppose, but it would be like mining for gold. Lot's of dirt and digging, with little predictable result."
I'd call that a hit.
@214: "I repeatedly write that what a deviant does in their own bedroom with consenting adults is their business... How exactly am I homophobic?"
One word: Deviant.
Two more words: Marriage Equality.
Dude. You're now reduced to lying about what you yourself are saying, even while you are saying it. What are you, a Palin speechwriter?
@212: "Finding an American woman who shares these values is possible, I suppose, but it would be like mining for gold. Lot's of dirt and digging, with little predictable result."
I'd call that a hit.
@214: "I repeatedly write that what a deviant does in their own bedroom with consenting adults is their business... How exactly am I homophobic?"
One word: Deviant.
Two more words: Marriage Equality.
Dude. You're now reduced to lying about what you yourself are saying, even while you are saying it. What are you, a Palin speechwriter?
217
@BB
I'm sorry to say but my Sweetypie Seattleblues might be bonkers. His ramblings remind me of either a Bipolar sufferer or Schizophrenic. He reminds me of a few family members who suffer from those diseases.
Hopefully he finds a good doctor and a balanced dose of Lithium.
I'm sorry to say but my Sweetypie Seattleblues might be bonkers. His ramblings remind me of either a Bipolar sufferer or Schizophrenic. He reminds me of a few family members who suffer from those diseases.
Hopefully he finds a good doctor and a balanced dose of Lithium.
218
@214: "Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, [homosexuality] is self destructive."
One, the vast majority of the evidence so far indicates that sexual orientation is not chosen, but rather is almost entirely innate. Strangely enough, the second half of your sentence is even more ridiculous than the first half.
Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose a young Protestant Christian man in small-town America decides, after careful consideration, to convert to Wicca. Such a decision would certainly put himself at odds with family, friends, and society at large, as Wicca is a small, rather disliked minority in this country. But according to your logic, the young man in this story would be acting out in a self-destructive way.
Also according to your logic, it's the fault of homosexuals if they are rejected by their loved ones and persecuted by society at large. If I may get a little bit Godwin all up in this bitch, would the ~9 million who perished in the Holocaust also be at fault for being minorities? Are we blaming the victims here?
One, the vast majority of the evidence so far indicates that sexual orientation is not chosen, but rather is almost entirely innate. Strangely enough, the second half of your sentence is even more ridiculous than the first half.
Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose a young Protestant Christian man in small-town America decides, after careful consideration, to convert to Wicca. Such a decision would certainly put himself at odds with family, friends, and society at large, as Wicca is a small, rather disliked minority in this country. But according to your logic, the young man in this story would be acting out in a self-destructive way.
Also according to your logic, it's the fault of homosexuals if they are rejected by their loved ones and persecuted by society at large. If I may get a little bit Godwin all up in this bitch, would the ~9 million who perished in the Holocaust also be at fault for being minorities? Are we blaming the victims here?
219
@212-214: Aaaaaaaaaand BINGO! Thanks SB, I knew I could count on you!
So to be clear, Liberals do not share your values regarding marriage, and you could not find an American woman (after what I am sure was an exhaustive search) who shared your values regarding marriage………so all American women are Liberals? No, that can't be it, considering how many women there are in the US…….. Hmm what could it be…. Hmm…Oh! Maybe it's just you.
Poor Seattleblues. Black people in the White House! Gays in the military and registering their china patterns! Women who laugh at his mansplaining and don't give his penis the respect that it's due! (It's in the bible, dagnabbit! Why won't bitchez read the bible?!) And these kids today, with their crazy music, who won't get off his lawn, and keep handing him his ass on the Internet! Even after he calls them "Junior"! And "Cupcake"! Gah! AUGH!!!!!
Yes it's hard out there for old Seattleblues. Gotta feel sorry for him. But I doubt any one could feel as sorry for him as he does for himself.
So to be clear, Liberals do not share your values regarding marriage, and you could not find an American woman (after what I am sure was an exhaustive search) who shared your values regarding marriage………so all American women are Liberals? No, that can't be it, considering how many women there are in the US…….. Hmm what could it be…. Hmm…Oh! Maybe it's just you.
Poor Seattleblues. Black people in the White House! Gays in the military and registering their china patterns! Women who laugh at his mansplaining and don't give his penis the respect that it's due! (It's in the bible, dagnabbit! Why won't bitchez read the bible?!) And these kids today, with their crazy music, who won't get off his lawn, and keep handing him his ass on the Internet! Even after he calls them "Junior"! And "Cupcake"! Gah! AUGH!!!!!
Yes it's hard out there for old Seattleblues. Gotta feel sorry for him. But I doubt any one could feel as sorry for him as he does for himself.
220
@217, Odd, Seattleblues' logic strikes me as incredibly similar to the logic of a close family member of mine suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Even the rhythm of SB's writing is very close to the cadence of this family member's speech and writing. In any case I don't think SB is a congenital narcissistic asshole, but rather just a narcissistic asshole who cannot see past his ENORMOUS privilege.
221
But 220, Can't you see the logic loops? All of the arguments that had nothing to do with what we said. He's a few braincells away from a breakdown that hopefully happens on Slog.
I feel rather bad for not wishing my Sweetypie Seattleblues a good day.
I feel rather bad for not wishing my Sweetypie Seattleblues a good day.
222
Whew, I'm relieved. For a while I was beginning to worry that calling a spade a spade was bigoted. Representing a tiny minority of our population monks [are] in fact deviant by definition. Representing a total disconnect with the biological point and purpose of human sexuality in marriage to God it is deviant by definition. Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive.
Oops, I'm sorry, that's a false equivalency, you don't choose to be gay, the way you might choose to become a monk. Also, you may not care what gays do in private, but you seem to have some very strong opinions on what they do in public, which really sets off the homophobe detector.
Oh, and regarding my revisionist history suggesting some appalling past behavior, you're wrong. It's not suggested, it's included, we have some pretty appalling past behavior. Regarding it being revisionist, of course it's revisionist, all history implicitly is- the problem with your revisionist history is the sheer quantity of denialism and lack of respect for other peoples it demonstrates. Refusing to acknowledge our country's failings further marginalizes the peoples we have already stomped on, that's the racist bit. If you don't want to call it racism, call it tribalism. It still demonstrates a belief that this exclusive group of caucasians who happen to be American are somehow superior to all of these other cultural and racial groups whose failings you have no problem pointing out.
And amazing, I didn't even think to call you misogynistic, but your outright dismissal of half of all Americans as potential romantic interests, simply because they are American and plumbed different from you, screams misogyny.
More...
Oops, I'm sorry, that's a false equivalency, you don't choose to be gay, the way you might choose to become a monk. Also, you may not care what gays do in private, but you seem to have some very strong opinions on what they do in public, which really sets off the homophobe detector.
Oh, and regarding my revisionist history suggesting some appalling past behavior, you're wrong. It's not suggested, it's included, we have some pretty appalling past behavior. Regarding it being revisionist, of course it's revisionist, all history implicitly is- the problem with your revisionist history is the sheer quantity of denialism and lack of respect for other peoples it demonstrates. Refusing to acknowledge our country's failings further marginalizes the peoples we have already stomped on, that's the racist bit. If you don't want to call it racism, call it tribalism. It still demonstrates a belief that this exclusive group of caucasians who happen to be American are somehow superior to all of these other cultural and racial groups whose failings you have no problem pointing out.
And amazing, I didn't even think to call you misogynistic, but your outright dismissal of half of all Americans as potential romantic interests, simply because they are American and plumbed different from you, screams misogyny.
223
Poor Lissa,
Geez, you couldn't even hit one that was slow and up the middle, poor girl. I mean, you keep gamely swinging away, but you keep missing, even the easy ones. Kudos on the 'little engine that could' mindset though.
"...you could not find an American woman Hmm…Oh! Maybe it's just you."
Spending most of my adult dating years in various other countries had somthing to do with who I dated at the time. Not a lot of American women in Bolivia or Singapore, at least when I was there. Ditto the part of Africa I travelled in, though I couldn't speak for more than that area. For all I know Egypt at one end and South Africa at the other are just alive with American female expats, I couldn't say. Italian women didn't do much for me, but there still weren't many non-tourist Americans around. While I don't claim to be irresistible to women, I've never had any real trouble finding dates either. Not even in high school when they were all Americans. Sorry to burst your bubble.
My wife is Ethiopian by the way. Barak Obama offends me as president for a lot of reasons. His wife hates this country. He is unqualified. He is philosphically just right for the more liberal parts of Canada or Northern Europe, but not so much for center right America. But his ethnicity has nothing to do with any of the reasons he is a bad president. If it did, my homelife would kind of suck, really.
I could care less about DADT, in effect or repealed. If the generals who must implement policy say it's bad policy, that's good enough for me. I could care less if gays want to cohabitate, or get together in groups or register for China patterns. I could care less if a gay couple rents one of my houses. I don't have a lot of employees, and I couldn't say if any are gay. I don't ask. It simply isn't my business. They do an honest days work for their pay and that's all I really care about.
I don't feel a bit sorry for myself. I have a wonderful wife and kids, good relations with my extended family and hers, good friends. I make my living doing something I enjoy which manages to pay my bills and leave a little extra, all while working about half the year. I live in the best country in the world, in the most beautiful corner of that country. At the same time we get to enjoy the rich cultural diet of Southern Europe a few months a year. By and large, I've been blessed, and am aware of that. Self pity would be gross ingratitude, in my case.
As for bitches reading the bible, I love my 2 female dogs, but I'm not about to try to teach them to read, the Bible or anything else. Frankly, I'm not sure why you brought this up. It's kind of an odd notion, if you don't mind my saying so.
Speaking of the Bible, you keep bringing it up, and the other apologists for homosexuality as a basis for special rights do as well. I have not once mentioned my faith or any scriptural support for a single position. Not one solitary time. I have actually said that my faith is personal, and not a basis for public policy, several times.
BB,
Read the definition of homophobia. I don't fear homosexuals, rationally or irrationally. I don't advocate discrimination against them. Like marriage, words like homophobia have meaning. And just like marriage is the union of a man and a woman, homophobia implies fear or discrimination of homosexuals.
You have, as I'm tired of pointing out (or you would have if you were an American citizen) the same rights to marry as I do. I can marry any woman who will consent to do so, and so can you. Et voila, marriage equality.
More...
Geez, you couldn't even hit one that was slow and up the middle, poor girl. I mean, you keep gamely swinging away, but you keep missing, even the easy ones. Kudos on the 'little engine that could' mindset though.
"...you could not find an American woman Hmm…Oh! Maybe it's just you."
Spending most of my adult dating years in various other countries had somthing to do with who I dated at the time. Not a lot of American women in Bolivia or Singapore, at least when I was there. Ditto the part of Africa I travelled in, though I couldn't speak for more than that area. For all I know Egypt at one end and South Africa at the other are just alive with American female expats, I couldn't say. Italian women didn't do much for me, but there still weren't many non-tourist Americans around. While I don't claim to be irresistible to women, I've never had any real trouble finding dates either. Not even in high school when they were all Americans. Sorry to burst your bubble.
My wife is Ethiopian by the way. Barak Obama offends me as president for a lot of reasons. His wife hates this country. He is unqualified. He is philosphically just right for the more liberal parts of Canada or Northern Europe, but not so much for center right America. But his ethnicity has nothing to do with any of the reasons he is a bad president. If it did, my homelife would kind of suck, really.
I could care less about DADT, in effect or repealed. If the generals who must implement policy say it's bad policy, that's good enough for me. I could care less if gays want to cohabitate, or get together in groups or register for China patterns. I could care less if a gay couple rents one of my houses. I don't have a lot of employees, and I couldn't say if any are gay. I don't ask. It simply isn't my business. They do an honest days work for their pay and that's all I really care about.
I don't feel a bit sorry for myself. I have a wonderful wife and kids, good relations with my extended family and hers, good friends. I make my living doing something I enjoy which manages to pay my bills and leave a little extra, all while working about half the year. I live in the best country in the world, in the most beautiful corner of that country. At the same time we get to enjoy the rich cultural diet of Southern Europe a few months a year. By and large, I've been blessed, and am aware of that. Self pity would be gross ingratitude, in my case.
As for bitches reading the bible, I love my 2 female dogs, but I'm not about to try to teach them to read, the Bible or anything else. Frankly, I'm not sure why you brought this up. It's kind of an odd notion, if you don't mind my saying so.
Speaking of the Bible, you keep bringing it up, and the other apologists for homosexuality as a basis for special rights do as well. I have not once mentioned my faith or any scriptural support for a single position. Not one solitary time. I have actually said that my faith is personal, and not a basis for public policy, several times.
BB,
Read the definition of homophobia. I don't fear homosexuals, rationally or irrationally. I don't advocate discrimination against them. Like marriage, words like homophobia have meaning. And just like marriage is the union of a man and a woman, homophobia implies fear or discrimination of homosexuals.
You have, as I'm tired of pointing out (or you would have if you were an American citizen) the same rights to marry as I do. I can marry any woman who will consent to do so, and so can you. Et voila, marriage equality.
224
@221, Maybe if we keep poking him he'll pop. It would be the flounce to end all flounces. Perhaps he would have to take some time to balance his humors at his Italian villa.
226
@223: I imagine some of your best friends are black as well.
It’s nice to see you admit to privilege. It sounds like your life is pretty much skittles and beer. Good for you, you International Stud!
So setting aside the EPIC example of mansplaining, coupled with a breathtaking lack of reading comprehension and pretended misapprehension of pop culture references (Bitchez, please),
Riddle me this:
If your life is so wonderful, and the shenanigans of the disenfranchised, (be they gay, poor, people of color, uppity womenz , what have you,) bother you not one wit,
Why do you keep coming back here?
It’s nice to see you admit to privilege. It sounds like your life is pretty much skittles and beer. Good for you, you International Stud!
So setting aside the EPIC example of mansplaining, coupled with a breathtaking lack of reading comprehension and pretended misapprehension of pop culture references (Bitchez, please),
Riddle me this:
If your life is so wonderful, and the shenanigans of the disenfranchised, (be they gay, poor, people of color, uppity womenz , what have you,) bother you not one wit,
Why do you keep coming back here?
227
@225
Who said I was? IRS rules could easily recognize civil unions as equivalent to marriage. I wouldn't care. It's calling it marriage that gives me trouble, not recognizing the civil rights of lifelong couples, gay or straight.
@222
So now I'm misogynist because I don't feel romanticaly attracted to American women in the main? All right, I give up. I'm a homophobic, racist, misogynistic-hell, let's throw in puppy kicking- asshole because I think that the sexual relations of a couple are private, don't like a president because of his politics who happens to be black, and don't feel attracted to American women. Oh, and I breed dogs just so that I can kick the puppies. (Though both my dogs are girls and both spayed, so I can't say I've had much success breeding them. I guess I'll have to get them registered as lesbian dogs so they can adopt.) You got me.
Who said I was? IRS rules could easily recognize civil unions as equivalent to marriage. I wouldn't care. It's calling it marriage that gives me trouble, not recognizing the civil rights of lifelong couples, gay or straight.
@222
So now I'm misogynist because I don't feel romanticaly attracted to American women in the main? All right, I give up. I'm a homophobic, racist, misogynistic-hell, let's throw in puppy kicking- asshole because I think that the sexual relations of a couple are private, don't like a president because of his politics who happens to be black, and don't feel attracted to American women. Oh, and I breed dogs just so that I can kick the puppies. (Though both my dogs are girls and both spayed, so I can't say I've had much success breeding them. I guess I'll have to get them registered as lesbian dogs so they can adopt.) You got me.
228
SB: Denial of marriage equality is discrimination. Your inability to see that - your absurd assertion that there is no discrimination because a gay man could still marry a woman, just like you can! - simply confirms your homophobia.
Thought experiment: If you were transported to opposite world, where gays were free to marry and heterosexuals were not, would you consider yourself to have full equality simply because you too could marry another man?
As to definitions and marriage, until the latter part of the twentieth century, marriage in the West meant the legal submission of the wife to her husband. She had no property rights - everything belonged to the husband. She did not even have the right to her own body; sexually, she was her husband's for the taking. This was legally defined; in the United States, the last spousal exemption from rape statutes was not removed until 1993.
So, clearly, marriage - what it means, legally and socially - is an institution that can evolve and which has evolved. Simply repeating over and over that marriage is "defined" a certain way - an unchanging way - is futile.
Thought experiment: If you were transported to opposite world, where gays were free to marry and heterosexuals were not, would you consider yourself to have full equality simply because you too could marry another man?
As to definitions and marriage, until the latter part of the twentieth century, marriage in the West meant the legal submission of the wife to her husband. She had no property rights - everything belonged to the husband. She did not even have the right to her own body; sexually, she was her husband's for the taking. This was legally defined; in the United States, the last spousal exemption from rape statutes was not removed until 1993.
So, clearly, marriage - what it means, legally and socially - is an institution that can evolve and which has evolved. Simply repeating over and over that marriage is "defined" a certain way - an unchanging way - is futile.
229
Lissa,
Honestly, some of you seem fairly intelligent. I've given up on it now, but I was hoping for some intelligent discussion of relative political positions.
Our priviledge is born of years of hard work and putting off buying what we wanted. It is born of discipline and skill and yes, luck. Neither of us were born wealthy. Neither have spectacular connections. We just put our heads down, worked very hard for a decade, and now can enjoy the results of it.
Anyone could do it, 'disenfranchised' or not.
International stud? My wife just looked over my shoulder and is now rolling on the floor in helpless laughter. She says to say thanks for the comic relief.
Well, have a pleasant evening.
Honestly, some of you seem fairly intelligent. I've given up on it now, but I was hoping for some intelligent discussion of relative political positions.
Our priviledge is born of years of hard work and putting off buying what we wanted. It is born of discipline and skill and yes, luck. Neither of us were born wealthy. Neither have spectacular connections. We just put our heads down, worked very hard for a decade, and now can enjoy the results of it.
Anyone could do it, 'disenfranchised' or not.
International stud? My wife just looked over my shoulder and is now rolling on the floor in helpless laughter. She says to say thanks for the comic relief.
Well, have a pleasant evening.
233
@226: @223: I imagine some of your best friends are black as well.
Seattleblues pointed out in a previous thread that he met a Latina in the 1980s, an occassion which single-handedly absolved him of any racism in his anti-immigrant views.
Seattleblues pointed out in a previous thread that he met a Latina in the 1980s, an occassion which single-handedly absolved him of any racism in his anti-immigrant views.
235
@214:
Whew, I'm relieved. For a while I was beginning to worry that calling a spade a spade was homophobia. Representing a tiny minority of our population homosexuality is in fact deviant by definition. Representing a total disconnect with the biological point and purpose of human sexuality it is deviant by definition. Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive.
It most certainly is not.
Deviant is defined as follows:
Deviant
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
Deviant is inherently judgemental against a natural attribute that is fundamental to mammalian life, and certainly fundamental to human life. It accuses homosexuals of being ab-normal, or outside of the norm, which is patently ridiculous. And further, you accuse homosexuals of ACTING in a way that is itself deviant, wrong, and "at odds" with "society at large."
Your logic here is absolutely obscene, and grotesquely offensive, equating numbers of people who fit within some arbitrary category as thus leading to defining them as "deviant."
By the same token, black people in Canada (a small portion of the population) are also deviant. Let me cast this in a slightly more explicit equivalency:
Negroes in Canada are a small part of the population, "representing a total disconnect with the biological point" and the purpose of human evolution at different geographic latitudes. They exist entirely out of place, inherently. Negroes in Canada are "representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive." Clearly, black people choosing voluntarily to live in a place that is largely white, is at geographical odds with evolutionary principles. So, while I don't feel that we should pass laws against blacks living in Canada, it is not in any way racist for me to state that black people should not reside in Canada, and that it is DEVIANT for any black people to live in Canada or want to move into Canada. Such behavior is SELF DESTRUCTIVE, leads to them being a very small part of the larger population. I'm not actually afraid of black people, I just think that they should keep to themselves, and whites should keep to themselves, and no black people should move to Canada.
That is basically what you're saying:
"I don't like Ni**ers, their presence, their very EXISTENCE in this society is DEVIANT, but as long as I don't advocate passing legislation to discriminate against black people I'm not a racist."
Which is exactly the same as:
"I don't like F*gs, their presence, their very EXISTENCE in this society is DEVIANT, but as long as I don't advocate passing legislation to discriminate against gay people, I'm not a homophobe."
I will let everyone else tell you to fuck off.
More...
Whew, I'm relieved. For a while I was beginning to worry that calling a spade a spade was homophobia. Representing a tiny minority of our population homosexuality is in fact deviant by definition. Representing a total disconnect with the biological point and purpose of human sexuality it is deviant by definition. Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive.
It most certainly is not.
Deviant is defined as follows:
Deviant
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
Deviant is inherently judgemental against a natural attribute that is fundamental to mammalian life, and certainly fundamental to human life. It accuses homosexuals of being ab-normal, or outside of the norm, which is patently ridiculous. And further, you accuse homosexuals of ACTING in a way that is itself deviant, wrong, and "at odds" with "society at large."
Your logic here is absolutely obscene, and grotesquely offensive, equating numbers of people who fit within some arbitrary category as thus leading to defining them as "deviant."
By the same token, black people in Canada (a small portion of the population) are also deviant. Let me cast this in a slightly more explicit equivalency:
Negroes in Canada are a small part of the population, "representing a total disconnect with the biological point" and the purpose of human evolution at different geographic latitudes. They exist entirely out of place, inherently. Negroes in Canada are "representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive." Clearly, black people choosing voluntarily to live in a place that is largely white, is at geographical odds with evolutionary principles. So, while I don't feel that we should pass laws against blacks living in Canada, it is not in any way racist for me to state that black people should not reside in Canada, and that it is DEVIANT for any black people to live in Canada or want to move into Canada. Such behavior is SELF DESTRUCTIVE, leads to them being a very small part of the larger population. I'm not actually afraid of black people, I just think that they should keep to themselves, and whites should keep to themselves, and no black people should move to Canada.
That is basically what you're saying:
"I don't like Ni**ers, their presence, their very EXISTENCE in this society is DEVIANT, but as long as I don't advocate passing legislation to discriminate against black people I'm not a racist."
Which is exactly the same as:
"I don't like F*gs, their presence, their very EXISTENCE in this society is DEVIANT, but as long as I don't advocate passing legislation to discriminate against gay people, I'm not a homophobe."
I will let everyone else tell you to fuck off.
237
What #235 said, more or less. You can say that homosexuality is atypical if you want, which is true; most people are not gay. Calling them deviant is pretty damn judgmental.
Lissa, I admire your sentiment, but please stop being a newfag.
Lissa, I admire your sentiment, but please stop being a newfag.
238
@237: I don't think you can call it atypical at all. It's a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be "normal" or "typical."
If we follow the stupid logic that it's just based on whether most people are, or are not that thing, then it leads us to silly places.
It is TOTALLY normal for a portion of ANY human population to be gay/bi/etc. People who fall into that category ARE NORMAL. They are totally within the TYPICAL range of completely expected, universal, human beings with totally normal human attributes, and NORMAL human sexualities.
Just as it is TOTALLY normal for a portion of ANY human population to be 3 years old. The overwhelming majority of the human population is NOT 3 years old. Being 3 years old is, in fact, pretty rare. But if you go to ANY average community of any decent size, anywhere on earth, you will find 3-year-olds. Being three years old is NORMAL. SOME people are three years old. It is natural, unversal across all of history and all of geography, that a small portion of any population is three years old.
SOME people are perfectly normal homosexuals, just as SOME people are perfectly normal three-year-olds.
I don't think I made this argument as fully clear as I wanted to before, but I COMPLETELY reject the whole conception that there is some fuzzy zone where you can be totally okay with GLBTQI people but still think they're "abnormal." They're no more abnormal than an old person, an infant, a woman, a man, or any other completely normal and universal category of normal humans.
If we follow the stupid logic that it's just based on whether most people are, or are not that thing, then it leads us to silly places.
It is TOTALLY normal for a portion of ANY human population to be gay/bi/etc. People who fall into that category ARE NORMAL. They are totally within the TYPICAL range of completely expected, universal, human beings with totally normal human attributes, and NORMAL human sexualities.
Just as it is TOTALLY normal for a portion of ANY human population to be 3 years old. The overwhelming majority of the human population is NOT 3 years old. Being 3 years old is, in fact, pretty rare. But if you go to ANY average community of any decent size, anywhere on earth, you will find 3-year-olds. Being three years old is NORMAL. SOME people are three years old. It is natural, unversal across all of history and all of geography, that a small portion of any population is three years old.
SOME people are perfectly normal homosexuals, just as SOME people are perfectly normal three-year-olds.
I don't think I made this argument as fully clear as I wanted to before, but I COMPLETELY reject the whole conception that there is some fuzzy zone where you can be totally okay with GLBTQI people but still think they're "abnormal." They're no more abnormal than an old person, an infant, a woman, a man, or any other completely normal and universal category of normal humans.
239
@Lissa, Is it legal for Eyepatch-Bowies and Demon-Kittens to marry in Canada? Or even on this plane of existence? I think that's one of the signs of the apocalypse.
240
@237: I'll have you know I *like* the ladies sir! Although admittedly to a lesser degree than I like the gentlemen, which makes me a "Bi to watch out for". And, as I understand it, opposite marriage is *just* as legal in Canada as gay marriage so either way my proposal is sound! If a little fan gurl. I will try to behave with more decorum in future, this being the Internet and all.
241
@239: Well I *have* been called The Sparkle Pony of the Apocalypse.......so I think you may have a point!
242
So, since Daniel Craig just phoned and canceled our date, and Mr. Canuck and I were forced to employ Plan B (watching 3 episodes of Big Bang Theory), and I am now back on Slog on a Friday night, I just wanted to say that Sam ktg has an awesome website, and not only that, he has a whatchamacalit of corgis running on a treadmill...squeee!! Lissa, you could certainly have a full-out church wedding here in Canada that would make the angels weep, but I fear if Baconcat ever sees that corgi video, you will have some competition for Sam's hand in holy matrimony.
243
@242: I was wondering where you had gotten to. Corgis you say?! I myself had a Corgi. The exes got her in the divorce, and for awhile they allowed me visitation, but alas no longer! I wish I knew how to do that taggy picture thing like Venomlash and samktg, then I could do what middle aged ladies do, where I show every one (interested or not) pictures of my pets. And thus this thread devolves.....
245
I am so sorry that you lost your corgi, by the way. I know it doesn't make up for that loss by any stretch of the imagination, but have some adorable corgi .gifs. And by all means, give us pictures of your pets; no doubt one day I too will be doing the same.
@Canuck, I'm glad you like the website, way too much time goes into it.
I must admit I quite l quite like this cuddly turn of events on this thread- by no means is this a devolution.
@Canuck, I'm glad you like the website, way too much time goes into it.
I must admit I quite l quite like this cuddly turn of events on this thread- by no means is this a devolution.
247
Oh, so sad, Lissa...about the exes and the lovely corgi! My dad did that to my mum, nice to lose a best friend and husband in one go, huh?
I couldn't talk to SB anymore, it was making my brain hurt. I can't stand reading the things he says, and I just don't understand why some people have such a strong need to limit the abilities and options of other people...what does he gain by it? What do any of them gain by it? Makes me sad.
The link thing! I'm feeling like a genius because I can now do a block quote, I think I'd have to have all that "a href" stuff taped to my computer at all times to be able to do it...
Why no Savage Love letter of the day?
I couldn't talk to SB anymore, it was making my brain hurt. I can't stand reading the things he says, and I just don't understand why some people have such a strong need to limit the abilities and options of other people...what does he gain by it? What do any of them gain by it? Makes me sad.
The link thing! I'm feeling like a genius because I can now do a block quote, I think I'd have to have all that "a href" stuff taped to my computer at all times to be able to do it...
Why no Savage Love letter of the day?
248
Hey Sam, .gif, that's what I meant! That corgi scooting one made me laugh. And I agree, we have triumphed over hate with corgis...ah.
(Backyard B, snap out of it! You're supposed to be all mellow and Canadian! Corgis rule, SB drools, right?)
So, the art history website, love it. Time well wasted is how I describe all of my pointless ventures. I like to think it could be worse: I could spend my extra time getting gel nails or developing a dependency on pharmaceuticals....OMGOMGOMG! I did the link thingy!!!
(Backyard B, snap out of it! You're supposed to be all mellow and Canadian! Corgis rule, SB drools, right?)
So, the art history website, love it. Time well wasted is how I describe all of my pointless ventures. I like to think it could be worse: I could spend my extra time getting gel nails or developing a dependency on pharmaceuticals....OMGOMGOMG! I did the link thingy!!!
249
Not sure what SB's motives are, Canuck, but I do recall that H.L. Mencken described Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
(As to the SLLOTD, perhaps the fleshpots of Miami were too enticing for Dan to tear himself away from.)
(As to the SLLOTD, perhaps the fleshpots of Miami were too enticing for Dan to tear himself away from.)
250
Ooo, fleshpots!! I think we should wed your quote about Puritanism with one of the last scenes in Good Morning Vietnam, where Robin Williams as Adrian Cronauer says to the cranky guy: "You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history," to describe what ails SB.
And don't you just want to force these guys to come up here and see the mass hysteria and bedlam that has resulted from same-sex marriage? Our boarded up cities? Our orphaned children milling through the streets like cast members from Les Miserables? Our skyrocketing unemployment rates?? Sheesh.
And don't you just want to force these guys to come up here and see the mass hysteria and bedlam that has resulted from same-sex marriage? Our boarded up cities? Our orphaned children milling through the streets like cast members from Les Miserables? Our skyrocketing unemployment rates?? Sheesh.
251
So... something about "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be getting a blowjob"?
Mass hysteria, bedlam... rising property values... strong banks... a 75% improvement in the taste and decorum displayed at the average wedding... It's madness, I tell you. Madness!
Mass hysteria, bedlam... rising property values... strong banks... a 75% improvement in the taste and decorum displayed at the average wedding... It's madness, I tell you. Madness!
252
Exactly! Explains the pent up frustration, at least...
It's true, we are so messed up, I want to pay for my appendectomy, dammit! And the wedding party is *supposed* to wear turquoise and peach, not black...end times are upon us.
It's true, we are so messed up, I want to pay for my appendectomy, dammit! And the wedding party is *supposed* to wear turquoise and peach, not black...end times are upon us.
253
Only wimps pay someone to do their appendectomies. Be self-reliant! Do it yourself. That's why God created Bactine and Bowie knives.
254
Do you remember which side it's on? Do you think that will matter? (I only have tequila and a melon baller...I traded my Bowie knife for a pair of platform Fluevogs.)
256
I call bullshit on my Sweetypie Seattleblues. The Ethiopian women I know would kick his ass for everything he's been saying, including his pro-gun rambles. Unless he got a crazy like him, but I do recall him talking about how he couldn't find a lady before she magically appeared.
And I love Mexicans!! My housekeeper and Barista are Mexican.
And I love Mexicans!! My housekeeper and Barista are Mexican.
263
@262: I think you mean "second-to-last", my dear Jesuswolf aficionado. (Though it may well be third-to-last if you should decide to snark back at me in order to recapture the last word.)
Ta.
Ta.
264
Venomlash, are you out there? I saw this button, and thought of you:
http://www.etsy.com/listing/62551892/cat…
http://www.etsy.com/listing/62551892/cat…
266
Credit where credit is due, the resident leftists did a good job on defense on this thread.
After making ridiculous claims that no sane person could support about the role of the 2nd Amendment and Sarah Palin (apparently equally important in the eyes of the left, oddly) they lost badly when sane people pointed out that Jared Loughner acted alone, and that the 2nd Amendment is open to change, if the political will is there.
Do you admit defeat? No. That would be too easy. 'Never say die' is your motto. But you couldn't win on any ground of logic or common sense, so what to do? I mean, Sarah Palin is no more responsible for the deaths in Arizon than I am, or you are, and you know it. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clearly written, and violating our rights there without regard to due process endangers every other Constitutionally mandated civil right, and you know this too. Well, clearly, confuse the issue with unrelated but very emotional topics, and then attack the opposition on ad hominem grounds, that's the strategy!
I fell for it. I admit it, to my shame. Kudos to the team of Lissa and Svensken for clouding the issue by bringing in homosexuality, and BB and Canuck for unrelated attacks on the folks with whom you disagree. Special mention should be made for the latter, after all they have no interest in our gun laws or our marriage laws, but presented their comments just as though they did. I learned long ago in high school and college debate lessons on this kind of obfustication, which I forgot long enough to be suckered. Again, congratulations lefties.
Hopefully the Seahawks will do better tomorrow than I did in this thread. Seeing Obamas home town boys defeated would be a close second for me to seeing my home town boys win. I like to think of the man watching this loss with some portion of the chagrin with which he watched America reject him in the last elections. Go Hawks!
More...
After making ridiculous claims that no sane person could support about the role of the 2nd Amendment and Sarah Palin (apparently equally important in the eyes of the left, oddly) they lost badly when sane people pointed out that Jared Loughner acted alone, and that the 2nd Amendment is open to change, if the political will is there.
Do you admit defeat? No. That would be too easy. 'Never say die' is your motto. But you couldn't win on any ground of logic or common sense, so what to do? I mean, Sarah Palin is no more responsible for the deaths in Arizon than I am, or you are, and you know it. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clearly written, and violating our rights there without regard to due process endangers every other Constitutionally mandated civil right, and you know this too. Well, clearly, confuse the issue with unrelated but very emotional topics, and then attack the opposition on ad hominem grounds, that's the strategy!
I fell for it. I admit it, to my shame. Kudos to the team of Lissa and Svensken for clouding the issue by bringing in homosexuality, and BB and Canuck for unrelated attacks on the folks with whom you disagree. Special mention should be made for the latter, after all they have no interest in our gun laws or our marriage laws, but presented their comments just as though they did. I learned long ago in high school and college debate lessons on this kind of obfustication, which I forgot long enough to be suckered. Again, congratulations lefties.
Hopefully the Seahawks will do better tomorrow than I did in this thread. Seeing Obamas home town boys defeated would be a close second for me to seeing my home town boys win. I like to think of the man watching this loss with some portion of the chagrin with which he watched America reject him in the last elections. Go Hawks!
267
Special mention should be made for the latter [BB and Canuck], after all they have no interest in our gun laws or our marriage laws, but presented their comments just as though they did.
Reading comprehension fail: Have stated many times I am a US citizen. (BB is a concerned Canadian.)
If we are not supposed to take an interest in the political affairs of other countries in order to ostensibly promote civil rights, one surely must wonder what, exactly, we are doing in Afghanistan.
Sarah Palin is no more responsible for the deaths in Arizona than I am, or you are, and you know it.
I don't "know it," and I never let bigots speak for me, in case you were confused. Sarah Palin is responsible, along with others, for ramping up the hate-filled rhetoric that has become all too common in the United States. If you think that has no effect on the general population, or does not influence those who are already unstable, then you underestimate the power of the spoken word. (Reload.)
Obviously, Seattleblues, I will never come around to your way of thinking no matter how many comments you make, nor will you come around to mine. I'd suggest we each keep doing what we feel will do the most to bring harmony and acceptance to this world:
You can continue to teach your children that gay people are sadly misguided "deviants," you can advocate for more guns and less personal responsibility, and you can take your (let's hope, for their sake) straight children over to Africa when it comes time to choose a spouse, as the gene pool on this side of the pond has been polluted with too many uppity women and godless men.
I, conversely, will continue to volunteer with an organization that teaches sex ed to kids, distributes free condoms, and runs workshops promoting LGBT sensitivity in the workplace. I will continue to write letters to the editor of our conservative local newspaper when they run editorials or letters that espouse views such as yours. I will continue to be thrilled that my children are growing up to be really cool people who have a wide, diverse group of friends. If one of them happens to be gay, that will be just great. The only thing that would really disappoint me would be if one of them became a conservative, but even then I would still love them no matter what.
269
'Agree to disagree?' Fine with me.
But speaking of reading comprehension-
"I don't "know it," and I never let bigots speak for me, in case you were confused." Fair enough, if I meet one I'll be certain to let them know. And I'm rarely confused, as I'm not a liberal. If you choose to believe that Jared Loughner has no responsibility for his actions it just makes the following sentence the more ironic though-
"... you can advocate for more guns and less personal responsibility,
Liberals are those who advocate for less personal responsibility, not conservatives. Conservatives routinely say that if one chooses not to obtain a trade or profession, they have that right, but they must accept the consequences of probable poverty. If one chooses to have a child, they have that right, but they must accept the financial burden of raising a child. If one chooses to buy a gun, they have that right, but they must accept responsibility for locking it up and using it in a law abiding manner, unlike that of say Jared Loughner.
And the only position I hold on guns is that they are a right that cannot be infringed upon, absent Constittutional amendment. I don't believe this because I own 43 guns myself. In fact I neither own nor wish to purchase a gun. I believe this for the reason I've repeated at least 4 times in this thread. All rights are protected by due process, or none of them are. The minute we set precedent for curtailing the 2nd Amendment on arbitrary ground without changing it, we put every other right we posess at jeopardy.
"You can continue to teach your children that gay people are sadly misguided "deviants,"
Gee. Thanks. Now that I have YOUR permission to raise my children as I see fit I feel ever so much better!
In the spirit of quid pro quo, you have the right to teach your kids that promiscuity is good, no form of sexuality has any consequences, and that chasitity and sexual intimacy as an expression of the deep love between a man and his wife are laughable puritan quirks.
More...
But speaking of reading comprehension-
"I don't "know it," and I never let bigots speak for me, in case you were confused." Fair enough, if I meet one I'll be certain to let them know. And I'm rarely confused, as I'm not a liberal. If you choose to believe that Jared Loughner has no responsibility for his actions it just makes the following sentence the more ironic though-
"... you can advocate for more guns and less personal responsibility,
Liberals are those who advocate for less personal responsibility, not conservatives. Conservatives routinely say that if one chooses not to obtain a trade or profession, they have that right, but they must accept the consequences of probable poverty. If one chooses to have a child, they have that right, but they must accept the financial burden of raising a child. If one chooses to buy a gun, they have that right, but they must accept responsibility for locking it up and using it in a law abiding manner, unlike that of say Jared Loughner.
And the only position I hold on guns is that they are a right that cannot be infringed upon, absent Constittutional amendment. I don't believe this because I own 43 guns myself. In fact I neither own nor wish to purchase a gun. I believe this for the reason I've repeated at least 4 times in this thread. All rights are protected by due process, or none of them are. The minute we set precedent for curtailing the 2nd Amendment on arbitrary ground without changing it, we put every other right we posess at jeopardy.
"You can continue to teach your children that gay people are sadly misguided "deviants,"
Gee. Thanks. Now that I have YOUR permission to raise my children as I see fit I feel ever so much better!
In the spirit of quid pro quo, you have the right to teach your kids that promiscuity is good, no form of sexuality has any consequences, and that chasitity and sexual intimacy as an expression of the deep love between a man and his wife are laughable puritan quirks.
270
Ah, Captain Wigged Out,
Sorry, buddy, don't have time to waste with you tonight. I promised my wife a babysitter and quiet drinks with no children.
Have a pleasant evening.
Sorry, buddy, don't have time to waste with you tonight. I promised my wife a babysitter and quiet drinks with no children.
Have a pleasant evening.
271
@269: "And I'm rarely confused, as I'm not a liberal."
http://i53.twitgoo.com/2jcc46c_th.png
Really? (Start at page 19, and remember that the viewers of FOX News are overwhelmingly conservative.)
"Liberals are those who advocate for less personal responsibility, not conservatives."
What, because we think that there should be a safety net in our society, allowing those struck by misfortune to get back on their feet and become productive citizens again? Remember, you guys are the ones pushing deregulation of almost every industry, mauling any proposal to enable the Federal and state governments to actually enforce their gun ownership laws, and blaming liberal boogeymen for the problems caused by your faction's greed and ineptitude.
"[guns] are a right that cannot be infringed upon, absent Constittutional[sic] amendment"
So apparently, prohibiting convicted felons from owning a firearm would be infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms? We don't let convicted felons vote, do we? Should we let them carry automatic rifles, weapons whose only purpose is to attack others?
"a man and his wife"
Maybe I'm reading into your wording too much, but that phrase seems indicative of a generally medieval attitude on your part, an implication which your commentary as a whole does nothing to contradict.
@270: "I'm taking my ball and hiring a babysitter so I can go home and spend some quality time with the missus!"
http://i53.twitgoo.com/2jcc46c_th.png
Really? (Start at page 19, and remember that the viewers of FOX News are overwhelmingly conservative.)
"Liberals are those who advocate for less personal responsibility, not conservatives."
What, because we think that there should be a safety net in our society, allowing those struck by misfortune to get back on their feet and become productive citizens again? Remember, you guys are the ones pushing deregulation of almost every industry, mauling any proposal to enable the Federal and state governments to actually enforce their gun ownership laws, and blaming liberal boogeymen for the problems caused by your faction's greed and ineptitude.
"[guns] are a right that cannot be infringed upon, absent Constittutional[sic] amendment"
So apparently, prohibiting convicted felons from owning a firearm would be infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms? We don't let convicted felons vote, do we? Should we let them carry automatic rifles, weapons whose only purpose is to attack others?
"a man and his wife"
Maybe I'm reading into your wording too much, but that phrase seems indicative of a generally medieval attitude on your part, an implication which your commentary as a whole does nothing to contradict.
@270: "I'm taking my ball and hiring a babysitter so I can go home and spend some quality time with the missus!"
272
Oh Seattleblues, you really do try, but...
"If you choose to believe that Jared Loughner has no responsibility for his actions"...
I never said that. I said that the people ramping up the hate-filled rhetoric are resposible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Loughner flourished.
"you have the right to teach your kids that promiscuity is good, no form of sexuality has any consequences, and that chasitity and sexual intimacy as an expression of the deep love between a man and his wife are laughable puritan quirks."
Finally, we're getting somewhere. Everything you say there is true, except for the consequences part (I've definitely told them the consequences of unprotected sex...hence the condoms and nuvarings...) But you are "bang on," as Mr. Canuck likes to say, about the Puritans. My ancestors were banished from Massachusetts by the Purtitans as heretics, so I guess you could say all that social justice crap is in my blood.
"If you choose to believe that Jared Loughner has no responsibility for his actions"...
I never said that. I said that the people ramping up the hate-filled rhetoric are resposible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Loughner flourished.
"you have the right to teach your kids that promiscuity is good, no form of sexuality has any consequences, and that chasitity and sexual intimacy as an expression of the deep love between a man and his wife are laughable puritan quirks."
Finally, we're getting somewhere. Everything you say there is true, except for the consequences part (I've definitely told them the consequences of unprotected sex...hence the condoms and nuvarings...) But you are "bang on," as Mr. Canuck likes to say, about the Puritans. My ancestors were banished from Massachusetts by the Purtitans as heretics, so I guess you could say all that social justice crap is in my blood.
275
@270: I'll bet your kids catch The Gay. I hear there's an agenda plague goin' round these parts.
277
Doh! Commie pinko liberals always refresh their browsers, Captain Wiggette, didn't you get the memo from headquarters? No worry, though, anything said to Seattleblues bears repeating, as his reading comprehension is challenged at best.
And I have an Etsy button for you, too! :
http://www.etsy.com/listing/62726933/spe…
And I have an Etsy button for you, too! :
http://www.etsy.com/listing/62726933/spe…
278
Re 271
Frankly I find your first paragraph a bit disjointed, which is odd considering that your style isn't usually in that pattern. So far as I can tell it is a hymn of praise to the social safety net, with a general condemnation not of what conservatives actually believe but of the straw men set up by left wing pundits. Nothing here to answer, really.
As for gun control, in 2008 the Supreme Court clarified the 2nd Amendment in the Heller case. We have an individual right to bear arms, which doesn't preclude regulation consistent with the militia clause. No conservative not deathly ill or otherwise incapacitated will resign while a far left nutjob like Obama sits in the White House, and none of the sitting conservative justices are unusually elderly or in ill health. Accordingly, the current make-up of the court is likely to be indicative of the next decade or 2 of case law.
Again, if you folks dislike the 2nd Amendment, there is a remedy. But wait, you know damn well that the public will for altering the 2nd Amendment is not there. So instead, you folks want to end run the process and pretend that the militia phrase is functionally limitless regarding legislation. Well, Heller says that it isn't.
I think you mean by medieval the following- Chastity prior to being involved in a loving relationhip with someone with whom you have emotional intimacy is neither a smirking joke nor an outdated concept. And sex within marriage between an emotionally intimate couple as the physical expression of that intimacy leaves sex without it standing. If that's medieval, so be it. So was Dante. So was Beothius. I'm happier with that company than with that of Andy Warhol or the smirkings of Jon Stewart, if it comes to that.
Sven Birkerts wrote a very interesting series of essays called the Gutenberg Elegy about contemporary thought. He wasn't condemning the fast pace of change, nor lauding it. He was merely taking some time to consider the consequences and directions of that change. It's worth a read, if only because he is a rare skillful writer and a real pleasure to read.
More...
Frankly I find your first paragraph a bit disjointed, which is odd considering that your style isn't usually in that pattern. So far as I can tell it is a hymn of praise to the social safety net, with a general condemnation not of what conservatives actually believe but of the straw men set up by left wing pundits. Nothing here to answer, really.
As for gun control, in 2008 the Supreme Court clarified the 2nd Amendment in the Heller case. We have an individual right to bear arms, which doesn't preclude regulation consistent with the militia clause. No conservative not deathly ill or otherwise incapacitated will resign while a far left nutjob like Obama sits in the White House, and none of the sitting conservative justices are unusually elderly or in ill health. Accordingly, the current make-up of the court is likely to be indicative of the next decade or 2 of case law.
Again, if you folks dislike the 2nd Amendment, there is a remedy. But wait, you know damn well that the public will for altering the 2nd Amendment is not there. So instead, you folks want to end run the process and pretend that the militia phrase is functionally limitless regarding legislation. Well, Heller says that it isn't.
I think you mean by medieval the following- Chastity prior to being involved in a loving relationhip with someone with whom you have emotional intimacy is neither a smirking joke nor an outdated concept. And sex within marriage between an emotionally intimate couple as the physical expression of that intimacy leaves sex without it standing. If that's medieval, so be it. So was Dante. So was Beothius. I'm happier with that company than with that of Andy Warhol or the smirkings of Jon Stewart, if it comes to that.
Sven Birkerts wrote a very interesting series of essays called the Gutenberg Elegy about contemporary thought. He wasn't condemning the fast pace of change, nor lauding it. He was merely taking some time to consider the consequences and directions of that change. It's worth a read, if only because he is a rare skillful writer and a real pleasure to read.
279
SB - you keep talking about the clarity of the second amendment but you never mention the first part. What do you suppose a well-regulated militia means in this context? And how might the concerns of that day (also illustrated in the third amendment) be very different in today's America?
280
@MyEverSweetCupcake Seattleblues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass-crime-assaults
Check these stats on Canada and read-up on the firearm registry. They have fierce enemies in the Canadian Conservative party and almost got voted out of the government by nut jobs like you.
But every canadian I know loves the registry and feels safe with them watching the guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass-crime-assaults
Check these stats on Canada and read-up on the firearm registry. They have fierce enemies in the Canadian Conservative party and almost got voted out of the government by nut jobs like you.
But every canadian I know loves the registry and feels safe with them watching the guns.
281
I'm late to this party...
I love the map.
*
Canuck: "I said that the people ramping up the hate-filled rhetoric are resposible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Loughner flourished."
I agree, but then using that same reasoning, we can say that Muslims around the world who espouse hatred of America are responsible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Major Nidal Hasan (who murdered 13 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood) flourished. But I don't recall my fellow libs condemning all those Muslims for their hate speech.
*
Seattleblues: "So instead, you folks want to end run the process and pretend that the militia phrase is functionally limitless regarding legislation. Well, Heller says that it isn't."
You're right, but the militia phrase is, of course, open to interpretation. Was the intent of that phrase to allow people the right to bear arms only in the context of a militia, or not? No one can agree. If the amendments were clear-cut we wouldn't have Supreme Court justices frequently disagreeing. Heller, I believe, was the typical conservative/liberal split with Kennedy siding with the conservatives. But, as you alluded to, it will probably be quite some time before there is a Supreme Court that would see things differently.
I've also read that polls show decreasing support among Americans for gun control. What I've read is that liberals have remained fairly constant in favor of it and conservatives fairly constant in opposition, with the support decreasing among independents. After every incident like this, there is always a clamor for something to be done but nothing significant will happen.
"a far left nutjob like Obama" What makes him "far" left to you?
"Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive."
What makes you absolutely convinced that homosexuality is a choice? You and I are both heterosexual...did you choose to be attracted to women? I didn't. I didn't sit down one day in 5th grade and say to myself ("Y'know, girls and boys look equally cute to me but I'm gonna pick girls because that won't piss my parents off.") I've just always been attracted to them (and, likewise, the same for you.) Why is it so difficult to accept the fact it very well be the same thing for gays & lesbians?
*
Captain Wiggette: "Seattleblues pointed out in a previous thread that he met a Latina in the 1980s, an occassion which single-handedly absolved him of any racism in his anti-immigrant views."
Talk about reading comprehension fail. I was the one in that thread who mentioned I had a Latina girlfriend in the '80s and the reason I did it was because of her parents. As I mentioned, her parents were from New Mexico and both of them were descended from legal immigrants from Mexico. They were in favor of legal immigrants from Mexico but not in favor of illegal immigrants. However, using your peculiar kind of "logic", they are "racist" against their fellow Latinos since they are opposed to illegal immigrants from Mexico.
More...
I love the map.
*
Canuck: "I said that the people ramping up the hate-filled rhetoric are resposible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Loughner flourished."
I agree, but then using that same reasoning, we can say that Muslims around the world who espouse hatred of America are responsible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Major Nidal Hasan (who murdered 13 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood) flourished. But I don't recall my fellow libs condemning all those Muslims for their hate speech.
*
Seattleblues: "So instead, you folks want to end run the process and pretend that the militia phrase is functionally limitless regarding legislation. Well, Heller says that it isn't."
You're right, but the militia phrase is, of course, open to interpretation. Was the intent of that phrase to allow people the right to bear arms only in the context of a militia, or not? No one can agree. If the amendments were clear-cut we wouldn't have Supreme Court justices frequently disagreeing. Heller, I believe, was the typical conservative/liberal split with Kennedy siding with the conservatives. But, as you alluded to, it will probably be quite some time before there is a Supreme Court that would see things differently.
I've also read that polls show decreasing support among Americans for gun control. What I've read is that liberals have remained fairly constant in favor of it and conservatives fairly constant in opposition, with the support decreasing among independents. After every incident like this, there is always a clamor for something to be done but nothing significant will happen.
"a far left nutjob like Obama" What makes him "far" left to you?
"Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive."
What makes you absolutely convinced that homosexuality is a choice? You and I are both heterosexual...did you choose to be attracted to women? I didn't. I didn't sit down one day in 5th grade and say to myself ("Y'know, girls and boys look equally cute to me but I'm gonna pick girls because that won't piss my parents off.") I've just always been attracted to them (and, likewise, the same for you.) Why is it so difficult to accept the fact it very well be the same thing for gays & lesbians?
*
Captain Wiggette: "Seattleblues pointed out in a previous thread that he met a Latina in the 1980s, an occassion which single-handedly absolved him of any racism in his anti-immigrant views."
Talk about reading comprehension fail. I was the one in that thread who mentioned I had a Latina girlfriend in the '80s and the reason I did it was because of her parents. As I mentioned, her parents were from New Mexico and both of them were descended from legal immigrants from Mexico. They were in favor of legal immigrants from Mexico but not in favor of illegal immigrants. However, using your peculiar kind of "logic", they are "racist" against their fellow Latinos since they are opposed to illegal immigrants from Mexico.
282
Halfwit at 280,
I don't own a gun, nor do I want one. So you can keep calling me a gun nut til the cows come home, it don't make it true, you product of the unholy union of siblings..
I do want due process to prevail in how we maintain our rights. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, change it. Otherwise, the way in which law and the Supreme Court have interpreted these gun laws are the law of the land. Read Heller for further information, not Canadian laws which have no bearing on the issue whatever. At all. In any way. Canadian law or opinions on this are utterly irrelevant.
I could give a damn less what Canadians like. They seem nice enough on the occasional trips to Victoria or Vancouver, but I don't meddle in their politics and would appreciate their not meddling in ours. It may have escaped your notice, but we don't live in Canada. If you want to emigrate, please do. Please. Any time. The sooner the better. It would raise the average intelligence in whatever community you currently inhabit if you did. Otherwise, accept the law of THIS land, change it legally, or shut the hell up.
I don't own a gun, nor do I want one. So you can keep calling me a gun nut til the cows come home, it don't make it true, you product of the unholy union of siblings..
I do want due process to prevail in how we maintain our rights. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, change it. Otherwise, the way in which law and the Supreme Court have interpreted these gun laws are the law of the land. Read Heller for further information, not Canadian laws which have no bearing on the issue whatever. At all. In any way. Canadian law or opinions on this are utterly irrelevant.
I could give a damn less what Canadians like. They seem nice enough on the occasional trips to Victoria or Vancouver, but I don't meddle in their politics and would appreciate their not meddling in ours. It may have escaped your notice, but we don't live in Canada. If you want to emigrate, please do. Please. Any time. The sooner the better. It would raise the average intelligence in whatever community you currently inhabit if you did. Otherwise, accept the law of THIS land, change it legally, or shut the hell up.
283
@266: Aaand DA BEARS handily defeat the Seahawks, although they did loaf a bit in the last 5:00.
@278: So you're saying that conservatives are NOT actually pushing for deregulation of industry? And that conservatives are NOT actually against waiting periods for purchasing firearms (without which background checks are rather ineffectual)? And that conservatives have NOT consistently tried to paint our current economic woes as the "Obama Recession" from Day One?
And no, by "medieval" I mean your use of "man and his wife" rather than "husband and wife", as the first implies ownership while the second implies partnership. Again, I may have been reading perhaps a little too much into your wording.
Finally, citing two philosophers as examples of the Middle Ages suggests a great deal either of ignorance or of dishonesty on your part. European society, during those days, was barbaric, regressive, widely uneducated, and tyrannical. Claiming that the medieval period was somehow civilized, based solely on a smattering of examples, is like claiming that the Nazis were tolerant of minorities, based solely upon the example of Erwin Rommel.
@278: So you're saying that conservatives are NOT actually pushing for deregulation of industry? And that conservatives are NOT actually against waiting periods for purchasing firearms (without which background checks are rather ineffectual)? And that conservatives have NOT consistently tried to paint our current economic woes as the "Obama Recession" from Day One?
And no, by "medieval" I mean your use of "man and his wife" rather than "husband and wife", as the first implies ownership while the second implies partnership. Again, I may have been reading perhaps a little too much into your wording.
Finally, citing two philosophers as examples of the Middle Ages suggests a great deal either of ignorance or of dishonesty on your part. European society, during those days, was barbaric, regressive, widely uneducated, and tyrannical. Claiming that the medieval period was somehow civilized, based solely on a smattering of examples, is like claiming that the Nazis were tolerant of minorities, based solely upon the example of Erwin Rommel.
284
@Sweetypie
Your an idiot if you think that non of our laws are based on another countries. The basis of our Democracy is the Roman Republic. Have you never notice the architecture of our capitals?
You obviously didn't read my links,. If you did you would have seen how our Canadian friends, who you hate :(, have setup a system where gun owners have rights but the crazies can't own a gun.
And you should read a little on Constitutional law. The Constitution is a living/breathing document that's meant to change with the people.
Your an idiot if you think that non of our laws are based on another countries. The basis of our Democracy is the Roman Republic. Have you never notice the architecture of our capitals?
You obviously didn't read my links,. If you did you would have seen how our Canadian friends, who you hate :(, have setup a system where gun owners have rights but the crazies can't own a gun.
And you should read a little on Constitutional law. The Constitution is a living/breathing document that's meant to change with the people.
286
Svensken, Seattleblues ignores the questions he can't answer (like why it's bad for Canadians to care about US politics, but it's good for Americans to care about politics in Afghanistan), or he twists what you said in the first place. Our gun laws, while allowing people to have rifles for hunting is they so wish, are great in the "hard to acquire a handgun" department, and let's face it, handguns are for killing people, full stop.
Roma, if I recall, there was a big hue and outcry when the cartoonist was targeted by extremists for her drawings of Mohammed, or when Theo Van Gogh was murdered. The liberal media *does* talk about it when any kind of extremism results in the death of moderates, but I don't have sources, that's just what I remember.
Roma, if I recall, there was a big hue and outcry when the cartoonist was targeted by extremists for her drawings of Mohammed, or when Theo Van Gogh was murdered. The liberal media *does* talk about it when any kind of extremism results in the death of moderates, but I don't have sources, that's just what I remember.
287
Canuck, yes there was a fair amount of condemnation of Islamic-extremist hate speech in the two situations you mentioned. But I was referring to Major Hasan and his murder of 13 people at Fort Hood which, I would argue, is much more comparable to Loughner. In that situation, I don't recall my/our fellow libs saying that Muslims around the world who espouse hatred of America are responsible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Hasan flourished. What I recall was an insistence that he was a "lone nut."
For example, compare these post-rampage editorials in the NY Times:
Hasan
In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, "we don't know all the answers yet" and cautioned everyone against "jumping to conclusions." …until investigations are complete, no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling rampage.
Loughner
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.
For example, compare these post-rampage editorials in the NY Times:
Hasan
In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, "we don't know all the answers yet" and cautioned everyone against "jumping to conclusions." …until investigations are complete, no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling rampage.
Loughner
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.
288
280/svensken, thanks for the links. It was interesting to read about the Canadian registry.
"But every canadian I know loves the registry and feels safe with them watching the guns."
Every Canadian you know is, of course, anecdotal. Did you see this part of the Wikipedia piece...
A survey in August 2010 revealed that 72 percent of Canadians believe the long-gun registry has done nothing to prevent crime.
And I found this interesting...
The Violence Policy Center has argued against such a system being implemented in the United States on the grounds that it would not reduce gun violence in America. (The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national 501(c)(3) educational organization working to prohibit gun ownership in America, especially in relation to gun politics. Founded in 1988 and based in Washington, DC, the VPC approaches violence, and firearms violence in particular, as a broad based public health, as opposed to solely a crime, issue.)
"But every canadian I know loves the registry and feels safe with them watching the guns."
Every Canadian you know is, of course, anecdotal. Did you see this part of the Wikipedia piece...
A survey in August 2010 revealed that 72 percent of Canadians believe the long-gun registry has done nothing to prevent crime.
And I found this interesting...
The Violence Policy Center has argued against such a system being implemented in the United States on the grounds that it would not reduce gun violence in America. (The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national 501(c)(3) educational organization working to prohibit gun ownership in America, especially in relation to gun politics. Founded in 1988 and based in Washington, DC, the VPC approaches violence, and firearms violence in particular, as a broad based public health, as opposed to solely a crime, issue.)
289
Fair points, Roma. Perhaps we're overly conscious about drawing comparisons with Muslim rhetoric for fear of being labeled insensitive, while we don't pull our punches with our own...I don't know. But, fair points. I really do think that any group, be it extremists in the Middle East or Teaparty members, should be aware that their hate speech does much to increase tensions and bad feelings all around. I don't think there's a big difference between what people like Beck, Palin, and all of the hate-group Christians say in terms of their "apocalyptic" speech, and the kind of stuff that ends up on Middle Eastern TV stations, promoting suicide bombers. We *all* need to take it down a notch, or ten.
Re: SB's position on same sex attraction: You can't ask him when he chose to be straight, in the hopes that he will see the fallacy of his argument. He believes "straightness" is our default setting, that because we are "designed" to procreate, then there is no "reason" for people to be anything other than straight. (Don't bother telling him about the thousands of examples in the animal kingdom about homosexuality in animals, or the benefit of gay people to the whole tribe from thousands of years back) He believes that even if people feel same-sex attraction, that they can "choose" not to act on it. Good thing SB is straight, and he can act on his opposite sex attraction without fear of condemnation, whew!
He is a bigot who cloaks his bigotry in good grammar and excuses it with his religion.
Re: SB's position on same sex attraction: You can't ask him when he chose to be straight, in the hopes that he will see the fallacy of his argument. He believes "straightness" is our default setting, that because we are "designed" to procreate, then there is no "reason" for people to be anything other than straight. (Don't bother telling him about the thousands of examples in the animal kingdom about homosexuality in animals, or the benefit of gay people to the whole tribe from thousands of years back) He believes that even if people feel same-sex attraction, that they can "choose" not to act on it. Good thing SB is straight, and he can act on his opposite sex attraction without fear of condemnation, whew!
He is a bigot who cloaks his bigotry in good grammar and excuses it with his religion.
290
Roma @288
You might be interested to read this recent editorial in the Calgary Herald (our notoriously conservative paper) on gun laws in Arizona vs. the States:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/Wil…
Re: your points about the 72% who believe the long gun registry hasn't affected crime rates: Long guns generally aren't used to commit crimes, so it isn't surprising that registering long guns hasn't affected the crime rate (that is primarily committed with hand guns). However, it is exceedingly difficult to purchase a hand gun in Canada, and that does make a big difference in crime rates. We do, by any measure, have lower rates of gun crimes in Canada than you do in the States.
You might be interested to read this recent editorial in the Calgary Herald (our notoriously conservative paper) on gun laws in Arizona vs. the States:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/Wil…
Re: your points about the 72% who believe the long gun registry hasn't affected crime rates: Long guns generally aren't used to commit crimes, so it isn't surprising that registering long guns hasn't affected the crime rate (that is primarily committed with hand guns). However, it is exceedingly difficult to purchase a hand gun in Canada, and that does make a big difference in crime rates. We do, by any measure, have lower rates of gun crimes in Canada than you do in the States.
291
Thanks, Canuck.
"We *all* need to take it down a notch, or ten." It will be interesting to see if that happens. If it does then, as terrible of a tragedy as Tucson was, perhaps that will be a "silver lining" to it. But I'm pretty skeptical.
He believes that even if people feel same-sex attraction, that they can "choose" not to act on it.
Well that part is true, just as I could choose to not act on my attraction to women. But, as you and I both know, it's also ludicrous to expect someone to choose to avoid physical intimacy simply because it's in their nature to be attracted to someone of the same sex.
He believes . . . that because we are "designed" to procreate, then there is no "reason" for people to be anything other than straight.
Well part of that is also true. We are designed to procreate. Reproduction is one of the most fundamental drives -- if not the most fundamental drive -- of any creature. But what that line of thinking fails to take into account is that creatures who are very successful at breeding -- which human beings certainly are -- don't need to have every being reproduce. Having people who aren't geared towards breeding isn't a negative on our overpopulated planet; it's a positive.
"We *all* need to take it down a notch, or ten." It will be interesting to see if that happens. If it does then, as terrible of a tragedy as Tucson was, perhaps that will be a "silver lining" to it. But I'm pretty skeptical.
He believes that even if people feel same-sex attraction, that they can "choose" not to act on it.
Well that part is true, just as I could choose to not act on my attraction to women. But, as you and I both know, it's also ludicrous to expect someone to choose to avoid physical intimacy simply because it's in their nature to be attracted to someone of the same sex.
He believes . . . that because we are "designed" to procreate, then there is no "reason" for people to be anything other than straight.
Well part of that is also true. We are designed to procreate. Reproduction is one of the most fundamental drives -- if not the most fundamental drive -- of any creature. But what that line of thinking fails to take into account is that creatures who are very successful at breeding -- which human beings certainly are -- don't need to have every being reproduce. Having people who aren't geared towards breeding isn't a negative on our overpopulated planet; it's a positive.
292
Your welcome Roma.
Me saying that is anecdotal however it is my reality that I've come into contact with.
There is criticism of creating a registry in the United States. But I can't help but agree with the idea that potential gun owners should provide letters of reference, family contact information and a home inspection/interview before purchasing a gun.
You can own a gun, but you need to provide proof that you are a responsible individual.
Me saying that is anecdotal however it is my reality that I've come into contact with.
There is criticism of creating a registry in the United States. But I can't help but agree with the idea that potential gun owners should provide letters of reference, family contact information and a home inspection/interview before purchasing a gun.
You can own a gun, but you need to provide proof that you are a responsible individual.
294
Canuck, thanks for the link to the Calgary Herald article.
"Re: your points about the 72% who believe the long gun registry hasn't affected crime rates: Long guns generally aren't used to commit crimes, so it isn't surprising that registering long guns hasn't affected the crime rate (that is primarily committed with hand guns)."
I just saw that 72% figure in the Wikipedia piece and I thought it was an interesting contrast to what svensken said about Canadians he knows. But I guess I need something clarified by you or svensken. The Wikipedia piece says "Since its introduction in 2001 and continuing on to the present, the long-gun registry remains a contentious issue in Canadian politics." So is this registry only for long-guns or for all guns, including handguns?
Me saying that is anecdotal however it is my reality that I've come into contact with.
I understand that svensken, but our personal reality is not necessarily representative of the population at large, frequently because that reality mainly encompasses people who think like us. For example, if I extrapolated from my personal reality -- that I and everyone I know voted for Obama in 2008 -- to the U.S. population at large, I'd conclude that Obama won in a huge landslide. But, of course, he didn't.
"Re: your points about the 72% who believe the long gun registry hasn't affected crime rates: Long guns generally aren't used to commit crimes, so it isn't surprising that registering long guns hasn't affected the crime rate (that is primarily committed with hand guns)."
I just saw that 72% figure in the Wikipedia piece and I thought it was an interesting contrast to what svensken said about Canadians he knows. But I guess I need something clarified by you or svensken. The Wikipedia piece says "Since its introduction in 2001 and continuing on to the present, the long-gun registry remains a contentious issue in Canadian politics." So is this registry only for long-guns or for all guns, including handguns?
Me saying that is anecdotal however it is my reality that I've come into contact with.
I understand that svensken, but our personal reality is not necessarily representative of the population at large, frequently because that reality mainly encompasses people who think like us. For example, if I extrapolated from my personal reality -- that I and everyone I know voted for Obama in 2008 -- to the U.S. population at large, I'd conclude that Obama won in a huge landslide. But, of course, he didn't.
295
Roma, ALL guns in Canada have to be registered, long and "short". The reason it's a contentious issue is that, from what I've heard over the years, most of the people who own long guns are rural, and tend to have that mindset that they are hunters who use their guns responsibly, that their rifles or shotguns are not the cause of gun crimes, and so it's an invasion of their privacy to have to register them. While there's truth to that, no doubt, the gun registry went ahead, and Canadians still registered their long guns, amidst grumbling.
It is exceptionally difficult to acquire a handgun in Canada. Canada does not recognize general self defense as an adequate reason for having one, I think you must prove that your life is actually in danger. The people who do have them (legally) must show that they need them for their job, and are required to inform the RCMP when they transport them. For the few people who do get handguns, they are required to prove mental stability via exams, need letters of reference, and their spouse (if they are married) is notified. We only know of two people who have handguns, both for use in the backcountry.
It is exceptionally difficult to acquire a handgun in Canada. Canada does not recognize general self defense as an adequate reason for having one, I think you must prove that your life is actually in danger. The people who do have them (legally) must show that they need them for their job, and are required to inform the RCMP when they transport them. For the few people who do get handguns, they are required to prove mental stability via exams, need letters of reference, and their spouse (if they are married) is notified. We only know of two people who have handguns, both for use in the backcountry.
296
Thanks for the info, Canuck.
So this statement -- "A survey in August 2010 revealed that 72 percent of Canadians believe the long-gun registry has done nothing to prevent crime." -- must be as it appears, to apply to the feeling of Canadians only about the registration of long-guns. I wonder what percent of Canadians feel that the registration of handguns and/or the difficulty of acquiring them has done a lot to prevent crime.
Am I correct in presuming that Canada has nothing like the 2nd Amendment in the U.S.?
So this statement -- "A survey in August 2010 revealed that 72 percent of Canadians believe the long-gun registry has done nothing to prevent crime." -- must be as it appears, to apply to the feeling of Canadians only about the registration of long-guns. I wonder what percent of Canadians feel that the registration of handguns and/or the difficulty of acquiring them has done a lot to prevent crime.
Am I correct in presuming that Canada has nothing like the 2nd Amendment in the U.S.?
297
Interesting segment on 60 Minutes tonight about Loughner...
Robert Fein and Bryan Vossekuil wrote a comprehensive study of assassins for the Secret Service in 1999. In prisons and hospitals they talked to 20 subjects, including Arthur Bremer, who shot presidential candidate George Wallace, Mark Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, and Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Robert Kennedy.
They found that assassins come from all walks of life but travel a common path leaving distinctive clues. "One of the things that we also saw were that there were common motives among a number of these to include drawing attention to a grievance. Possibly looking for notoriety. Potentially actually being suicidal and being willing to die or expecting to die in an attack and perhaps wanting to die," Vossekuil added.
"In the more than 80 cases that you studied, was politics, pure and simple, ever the motivation?" Pelley asked.
"I cannot think of a case where politics, pure and simple, was the motivation. Sometimes people used a political language but people are more complicated than attacking somebody over quote a political motive," Fein said.
I found this part below particularly interesting. It seems like he may have held a grudge against Giffords ever since 2007 -- long before the existence of the Tea Party and Palin's infamous crosshairs map -- but didn't lash out at her until he had the "life-changing" event that probably really pissed him off and pushed him over the edge. It other words, it seems very plausible that his targeting of Giffords was due to his warped personal animosity towards her and it was simply a coincidence that her district was in one of Palin's crosshairs.
In 2007, Loughner brought one of his nonsensical questions to one of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' community meetings.
"The question he asked her was: 'What is government if words have no meaning?' And she read it and obviously, you know, that's kind of a convoluted question," Conway told Pelley.
Loughner told them what he thought of her reaction.
"He thought it was a joke," Conway remembered.
"Yeah, a joke that someone who works in government can't answer that," Tierney added.
"What was her answer to that question as he put it to you?" Pelley asked.
"Nothing. She didn't answer it," Tierney said.
"She didn't. She didn't answer it," Conway said.
"She couldn't answer it. I mean how would you how can you?" Tierney added.
"But because she didn't answer the question he had disdain for her?" Pelley asked.
"Oh, yeah," Conway replied.
"That's what he told you?" Pelley asked.
"I think that anyone who didn't connect to his lines of thinking he had disdain for," Conway said.
His friends say Loughner's "lines of thinking" intersected with conspiracy theories that government controls people's minds and that U.S. currency is worthless.
His only known meeting with Giffords was three years and four months before the assassination attempt.
When police searched Loughner's home they found a form letter from Giffords thanking him for attending. On the envelope, he wrote "Die bitch." He held on to the letter all those years.
. . .
The research on assassins shows that many killers started their final preparations after a life changing event.
And two months after his suspension from school, Loughner bought that Glock he admired.
More...
Robert Fein and Bryan Vossekuil wrote a comprehensive study of assassins for the Secret Service in 1999. In prisons and hospitals they talked to 20 subjects, including Arthur Bremer, who shot presidential candidate George Wallace, Mark Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, and Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Robert Kennedy.
They found that assassins come from all walks of life but travel a common path leaving distinctive clues. "One of the things that we also saw were that there were common motives among a number of these to include drawing attention to a grievance. Possibly looking for notoriety. Potentially actually being suicidal and being willing to die or expecting to die in an attack and perhaps wanting to die," Vossekuil added.
"In the more than 80 cases that you studied, was politics, pure and simple, ever the motivation?" Pelley asked.
"I cannot think of a case where politics, pure and simple, was the motivation. Sometimes people used a political language but people are more complicated than attacking somebody over quote a political motive," Fein said.
I found this part below particularly interesting. It seems like he may have held a grudge against Giffords ever since 2007 -- long before the existence of the Tea Party and Palin's infamous crosshairs map -- but didn't lash out at her until he had the "life-changing" event that probably really pissed him off and pushed him over the edge. It other words, it seems very plausible that his targeting of Giffords was due to his warped personal animosity towards her and it was simply a coincidence that her district was in one of Palin's crosshairs.
In 2007, Loughner brought one of his nonsensical questions to one of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' community meetings.
"The question he asked her was: 'What is government if words have no meaning?' And she read it and obviously, you know, that's kind of a convoluted question," Conway told Pelley.
Loughner told them what he thought of her reaction.
"He thought it was a joke," Conway remembered.
"Yeah, a joke that someone who works in government can't answer that," Tierney added.
"What was her answer to that question as he put it to you?" Pelley asked.
"Nothing. She didn't answer it," Tierney said.
"She didn't. She didn't answer it," Conway said.
"She couldn't answer it. I mean how would you how can you?" Tierney added.
"But because she didn't answer the question he had disdain for her?" Pelley asked.
"Oh, yeah," Conway replied.
"That's what he told you?" Pelley asked.
"I think that anyone who didn't connect to his lines of thinking he had disdain for," Conway said.
His friends say Loughner's "lines of thinking" intersected with conspiracy theories that government controls people's minds and that U.S. currency is worthless.
His only known meeting with Giffords was three years and four months before the assassination attempt.
When police searched Loughner's home they found a form letter from Giffords thanking him for attending. On the envelope, he wrote "Die bitch." He held on to the letter all those years.
. . .
The research on assassins shows that many killers started their final preparations after a life changing event.
And two months after his suspension from school, Loughner bought that Glock he admired.
298
Roma, it's hard to explain, but there is just a different mindset here. I don't think the response of the average Canadian to gun violence in their city would be, "I need to own a gun, myself," it would be more along the lines of, "What is the RCMP doing to control the gang violence that is cropping up?" That's the sense I have, anyway. We never lock our doors here, during the day, at least. I always leave the front door unlocked, because I hate thinking my son might get locked out when it's -25! Seriously, it is just so different. I'm probably generalizing, but it seems to me that the majority of gun related crimes here are committed by gangs that have moved into Canada fairly recently. I'm absolutely not being xenophobic, just stating what I remember from reading the paper, when I read about someone being shot downtown. Canada certainly isn't perfect, but Canadians are, in my experience, less aggressive than Americans.
299
@Roma
I question that survey, perhaps I'm wrong and I'll look into it when I'm sober. I do know many Canadians from various sections of that country and they like the gun laws. Keep in mind they are non-gun owners. But you can't help but think that a personal interview with Loughner would have seen him unfit for ownership of a weapon.
@Canuck has an excellent point. A majority of crimes are committed with 'Hot' Guns, like Mexico, that come from the US. All of the studies I've read have come from at least 2001, I'm presuming that our current state hasn't been properly analyzed for a sterile statement.
But this brings me back to my current idea. If we control gun ownership in America then maybe we can control Gun ownership on this continent. Perhaps we should start a government program to increase gun safes in america so theft isn't such an option? I know a few former criminals and they said that they would always invade homes when no one was home, so maybe an impenetrable safe is a good option?
I question that survey, perhaps I'm wrong and I'll look into it when I'm sober. I do know many Canadians from various sections of that country and they like the gun laws. Keep in mind they are non-gun owners. But you can't help but think that a personal interview with Loughner would have seen him unfit for ownership of a weapon.
@Canuck has an excellent point. A majority of crimes are committed with 'Hot' Guns, like Mexico, that come from the US. All of the studies I've read have come from at least 2001, I'm presuming that our current state hasn't been properly analyzed for a sterile statement.
But this brings me back to my current idea. If we control gun ownership in America then maybe we can control Gun ownership on this continent. Perhaps we should start a government program to increase gun safes in america so theft isn't such an option? I know a few former criminals and they said that they would always invade homes when no one was home, so maybe an impenetrable safe is a good option?
300
@Roma&Cunuck
Dear god can we say conflicting!!!!!
I followed the link to the studies findings (While drunk) and OMG!! It's an undergrads nightmare!!! So many numbers that it's hard to conceive of a coherent message (while drunk).
Dear god can we say conflicting!!!!!
I followed the link to the studies findings (While drunk) and OMG!! It's an undergrads nightmare!!! So many numbers that it's hard to conceive of a coherent message (while drunk).
301
svensken, I don't think I could even spell "coherent" if I were drunk, so you must still be slightly sober...although personally, I think drunk slogging gives us that nice little surprise, when you get up in the morning and think, "Oh god, what did I write, again?"
I think a lot of this has to do with attitudes as much as with laws (I'm overstating that, probably, the law obviously makes a big difference, too). I get the impression from these boards that the people who use guns genuinely feel like they need them for protection, that they are unacceptably vulnerable without them. I grew up in hippie Cambridge, Mass, and guns were just seen as an example of everything that was wrong with our aggressive society, so my experience doesn't help me to understand the mindset of people who feel that they need them on a daily basis.
I do know that I've never, and I'm not exaggerating, heard a Canadian say that he or she wished they could buy a handgun for personal safety from other people. Even the rural people we know who have hunting rifles never talk about using those rifles for self defense.
And yes, gun safes are essential, I think. I doubt there are too many thieves out there who would take the time to break into a gun safe. Not only do we have to register guns here, but they are required to be stored in a gun safe, or at the very least have trigger locks on them. This goes to show that people here have them primarily for hunting, and not self defense, because obviously, a gun that is locked in a safe isn't something you could access quickly. For that very reason I doubt gun safes will become a requirement in the States (going back to that "vulnerable without them" mindset), although if they were, I bet we'd read a lot fewer headlines about children shooting each other with a parent's gun.
More...
I think a lot of this has to do with attitudes as much as with laws (I'm overstating that, probably, the law obviously makes a big difference, too). I get the impression from these boards that the people who use guns genuinely feel like they need them for protection, that they are unacceptably vulnerable without them. I grew up in hippie Cambridge, Mass, and guns were just seen as an example of everything that was wrong with our aggressive society, so my experience doesn't help me to understand the mindset of people who feel that they need them on a daily basis.
I do know that I've never, and I'm not exaggerating, heard a Canadian say that he or she wished they could buy a handgun for personal safety from other people. Even the rural people we know who have hunting rifles never talk about using those rifles for self defense.
And yes, gun safes are essential, I think. I doubt there are too many thieves out there who would take the time to break into a gun safe. Not only do we have to register guns here, but they are required to be stored in a gun safe, or at the very least have trigger locks on them. This goes to show that people here have them primarily for hunting, and not self defense, because obviously, a gun that is locked in a safe isn't something you could access quickly. For that very reason I doubt gun safes will become a requirement in the States (going back to that "vulnerable without them" mindset), although if they were, I bet we'd read a lot fewer headlines about children shooting each other with a parent's gun.
302
I doubt Canada's gun laws prevent many bad guys from aquiring handguns. Not with the gun friendly USA next door. Mexico has severe restrictions on private handgun ownership, but the Narco-traffickers get them from north of the border easily enough.
303
@302 Maybe not, but still:
Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. Many types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls. Most of the users of these illegal firearms are youth in their teens and early 20s.
It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada. There is a permit that allows people to carry if they can prove they need to protect their lives but the permit is very rarely issued. Only about 50 permits had been issued in all of Canada as of 2000. In the same year there were approximately 1 million hand guns in Canada, compared to 77 million in the United States.[12] Defensive use of firearms is uncommon in Canada.[13]
304
Roma, it's hard to explain, but there is just a different mindset here. I don't think the response of the average Canadian to gun violence in their city would be, "I need to own a gun, myself," it would be more along the lines of, "What is the RCMP doing to control the gang violence that is cropping up?" That's the sense I have, anyway. We never lock our doors here, during the day, at least.
My younger sister doesn't lock the doors at her family's home either...but then she lives in small town with very little crime. Where do you live? I think if you live in a U.S. city and don't look your doors, you're foolish and I'd bet any police department in the U.S. would say that's the first step, and the easiest, that someone can take to prevent a home break-in.
If the police were able to protect people in the U.S. from assholes breaking into their home, then people wouldn't feel as much of a need to have a gun at home. But cops can't do that. Cops weren't protecting my elderly neighbor's house when some asshole broke in, raped her and bludgeoned her to death with a hammer. Cops weren't protecting my house when someone tried to break in during the early am hours years ago. I don't have a gun at home and probably never will (although I've certainly considered it) but I don't blame people who choose to have one and, furthermore, I applaud any homeowner who shoots and kills an asshole who has broken into their house.
Canada certainly isn't perfect, but Canadians are, in my experience, less aggressive than Americans.
It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.
My younger sister doesn't lock the doors at her family's home either...but then she lives in small town with very little crime. Where do you live? I think if you live in a U.S. city and don't look your doors, you're foolish and I'd bet any police department in the U.S. would say that's the first step, and the easiest, that someone can take to prevent a home break-in.
If the police were able to protect people in the U.S. from assholes breaking into their home, then people wouldn't feel as much of a need to have a gun at home. But cops can't do that. Cops weren't protecting my elderly neighbor's house when some asshole broke in, raped her and bludgeoned her to death with a hammer. Cops weren't protecting my house when someone tried to break in during the early am hours years ago. I don't have a gun at home and probably never will (although I've certainly considered it) but I don't blame people who choose to have one and, furthermore, I applaud any homeowner who shoots and kills an asshole who has broken into their house.
Canada certainly isn't perfect, but Canadians are, in my experience, less aggressive than Americans.
It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.
305
@Roma&Cunuck Dear god can we say conflicting!!!!! I followed the link to the studies findings (While drunk) and OMG!! It's an undergrads nightmare!!!
svensken, are you referring to this? "A survey in August 2010 revealed that 72 percent of Canadians believe the long-gun registry has done nothing to prevent crime."
If so, and the survey was truly poorly conducted, then that statement is probably not reliable.
Canuck, I had asked you earlier if Canada has anything like the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. (I presume not) and I remain curious...does it?
By the way, I love Cambridge (and Boston.) My best friend from my first job in Seattle ended up going to the JFK School at Harvard back in 1987, he lived near the Rindge & Latin school and I visited him every autumn while he was there.
svensken, are you referring to this? "A survey in August 2010 revealed that 72 percent of Canadians believe the long-gun registry has done nothing to prevent crime."
If so, and the survey was truly poorly conducted, then that statement is probably not reliable.
Canuck, I had asked you earlier if Canada has anything like the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. (I presume not) and I remain curious...does it?
By the way, I love Cambridge (and Boston.) My best friend from my first job in Seattle ended up going to the JFK School at Harvard back in 1987, he lived near the Rindge & Latin school and I visited him every autumn while he was there.
306
Sorry, Roma, meant to address that...no, Canada does not have anything equivalent to the 2nd amendment. There are some Canadian websites you can find that say Canadians *do* have the right to bear arms, and this is guaranteed by our constitution via English laws, but when you look at the links, they start with the Magna Carta, continue with English Common Law from the 1600s, and then cite some nebulous arguments about being able to protect one's self. I guess the rationale being that as we are a Commonwealth country, we should cede to the laws of English history...or something. Anyway, most people look to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the most current document describing our rights as Canadians (it's what people would turn to, for example, if they felt they had been discriminated against based on race, creed, or sexual orientation, as it establishes equal rights for all Canadians, and as such, we don't need specific acts such as ENDA.)
And yeah, wow, I miss Cambridge sometimes! I went to school at Rindge & Latin for a short time (ended up transferring elsewhere), and had many a misspent afternoon and evening in Hahvahd Squayuh.
And yeah, wow, I miss Cambridge sometimes! I went to school at Rindge & Latin for a short time (ended up transferring elsewhere), and had many a misspent afternoon and evening in Hahvahd Squayuh.
307
Thanks Canuck. I didn't think Canada had anything like the 2nd. And therein lies a fundamental difference between the two countries: the U.S. has the right to bear arms "enshrined" in the Constitution; Canada does not. And that right is, as you know, passionately defended by many Americans (and the "shall not be infringed" part has been interpreted very strictly by the courts.)
As I mentioned to an Australian in another thread, Australia, like Canada, did not resort to violent revolution against the British Empire in order to establish itself as a country. The U.S. did and it's my understanding the primary purpose of the 2nd was to ensure that "the people" could resist or overthrow any potential future tyranny ("being necessary to the security of a free State".)
Unlike in Canada and Australia, that right to bear arms is in our cultural and legal DNA.
Now, one can certainly argue -- and many people do -- that the 2nd isn't relevant anymore, that even if the U.S. ended up having a tyrannical government, there's no way "the people" armed with just guns could overthrow it or effectively resist it (presuming that the military, with its vast array of weapons, was on the government's side.) But others, I'm sure, would argue that "the people" need to have that right regardless, and a passionate 2nd Amendment defender could point to Afghanistan and the Russians as an example of how people armed with just guns (and okay, RPGs) can defeat a force with far superior firepower.
As I mentioned to an Australian in another thread, Australia, like Canada, did not resort to violent revolution against the British Empire in order to establish itself as a country. The U.S. did and it's my understanding the primary purpose of the 2nd was to ensure that "the people" could resist or overthrow any potential future tyranny ("being necessary to the security of a free State".)
Unlike in Canada and Australia, that right to bear arms is in our cultural and legal DNA.
Now, one can certainly argue -- and many people do -- that the 2nd isn't relevant anymore, that even if the U.S. ended up having a tyrannical government, there's no way "the people" armed with just guns could overthrow it or effectively resist it (presuming that the military, with its vast array of weapons, was on the government's side.) But others, I'm sure, would argue that "the people" need to have that right regardless, and a passionate 2nd Amendment defender could point to Afghanistan and the Russians as an example of how people armed with just guns (and okay, RPGs) can defeat a force with far superior firepower.
308
Interesting stuff, folks.
@302, 303 - There are certainly problems with illegal gun ownership - particularly handgun ownership - in Canada. The old NRA canard that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is true to a certain extent; if handguns are severely restricted or illegal, then only those who don't particularly care about breaking the law will acquire them.
But they do have to acquire them from somewhere. This paper shows there are three major sources of guns used in crimes in Canada: legal guns misused by their owners; legal guns diverted to illegal markets through theft or illegal sale; and... smuggled guns originating from the US:
It is because of statistics like these that American gun laws are, in fact, of valid concern to Canadians. All those arms that are freely kept down there? Some of them end up killing people up here.
(That's what economists call a ""negative externality".)
More...
@302, 303 - There are certainly problems with illegal gun ownership - particularly handgun ownership - in Canada. The old NRA canard that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is true to a certain extent; if handguns are severely restricted or illegal, then only those who don't particularly care about breaking the law will acquire them.
But they do have to acquire them from somewhere. This paper shows there are three major sources of guns used in crimes in Canada: legal guns misused by their owners; legal guns diverted to illegal markets through theft or illegal sale; and... smuggled guns originating from the US:
While guns originally owned in Canada are a major source for the illegal trade, in large cities, smuggled guns account for more than 50% of the handguns recovered in crime in Canada, 80% of the guns recovered in crime in Mexico and 1/3 of the guns recovered in crime in Japan.
Canada Customs seizes about 1000 - 1500 smuggled guns each year. This number represents the tip of the iceberg as only a small percentage (3%) of trans-border traffic is checked. These guns account for as many as 50% of the handguns recovered in crime. In 2004, the Canada Border Services Agency seized 1,099 firearms at the border including 140 non-restricted firearms, 299 restricted firearms and 660 prohibited firearms.
The United States has 280 million people with approximately 230 million guns (one third of them are handguns) and very few controls. Every year, half a million of these guns are stolen, thus entering into the illegal market.
It is because of statistics like these that American gun laws are, in fact, of valid concern to Canadians. All those arms that are freely kept down there? Some of them end up killing people up here.
(That's what economists call a ""negative externality".)
309
Geeze! Can't leave this thread for a minute!
Seattleblues, you said the reason you keep coming back here is to discuss issues with people of differing views. Calling people names is counterproductive. And no, the fact that other people are calling you names doesn't make it ok. Twisting people's screen names into an insult is a trick I personally find particularly obnoxious and it makes you look like a ten year old. As a conservative you like to present yourself and your movement as being more adult in your perspicacity and opinions, than your opponents on the Left. Start acting like it. If you need an example of civil disagreement I suggest you pay attention to the ongoing conversation between Roma, Canuck, and svensken in this thread.
I don't usually weigh in on discussions of the second amendment and gun ownership, mainly because I think they're pointless, and that the topic is used cynically by both sides to motivate their base. Guns in the United States are here to stay. Every time I get an hysterical e-mail from the NRA, of which I am a member, positing jack booted thugs coming to take my handguns, I have to laugh. Our country is VAST. There are millions of guns here of all types and sizes, in the hands of law abiding citizens and criminals alike. To rid our country of them, or even enforce wide scale registration, would require an budgetary increase both federally and locally the likes of which would make a Republican congress apoplectic en masse, and an almost complete gutting of the forth amendment. So yeah, that heavily armed horse has left the barn. Fighting over that fact just keeps us polarized as a nation and prevents exploration for the root causes of violence. The left likes to blame the tools used, while the right likes to blame human nature. Both positions are pat, and simplistic, and perfect for sound bites, but lousy as a basis for public policy. But that's just my opinion.
More...
Seattleblues, you said the reason you keep coming back here is to discuss issues with people of differing views. Calling people names is counterproductive. And no, the fact that other people are calling you names doesn't make it ok. Twisting people's screen names into an insult is a trick I personally find particularly obnoxious and it makes you look like a ten year old. As a conservative you like to present yourself and your movement as being more adult in your perspicacity and opinions, than your opponents on the Left. Start acting like it. If you need an example of civil disagreement I suggest you pay attention to the ongoing conversation between Roma, Canuck, and svensken in this thread.
I don't usually weigh in on discussions of the second amendment and gun ownership, mainly because I think they're pointless, and that the topic is used cynically by both sides to motivate their base. Guns in the United States are here to stay. Every time I get an hysterical e-mail from the NRA, of which I am a member, positing jack booted thugs coming to take my handguns, I have to laugh. Our country is VAST. There are millions of guns here of all types and sizes, in the hands of law abiding citizens and criminals alike. To rid our country of them, or even enforce wide scale registration, would require an budgetary increase both federally and locally the likes of which would make a Republican congress apoplectic en masse, and an almost complete gutting of the forth amendment. So yeah, that heavily armed horse has left the barn. Fighting over that fact just keeps us polarized as a nation and prevents exploration for the root causes of violence. The left likes to blame the tools used, while the right likes to blame human nature. Both positions are pat, and simplistic, and perfect for sound bites, but lousy as a basis for public policy. But that's just my opinion.
310
Well, although pat, I think there is validity to both arguments, Lissa, both the availability of guns, and the mindset of the people who use them in the States. But, one more thing to look at, when wondering why Switzerland and Canada have gun ownership without the levels of gun crime that the States has, would be the huge disparity of wealth. I would venture that neither Canada nor Switzerland has the large number of disenfranchised, desperate, uninsured people that the States does. It seems that whether you're looking at parts of the States that have high levels of gun crime, or Africa, or Mexico, there is also a huge disparity in income levels.
And I agree, there would be little point trying to change the 2nd amendment. But it should take at least as much training and licensing to own a gun as it does to drive a car...
And I agree, there would be little point trying to change the 2nd amendment. But it should take at least as much training and licensing to own a gun as it does to drive a car...
311
@310: But, but, but, Canuck... surely requiring training or licensing would represent an INFRINGEMENT on the sacred Right to keep and bear arms! The Second Amendment says nothing about "responsible gun ownership"!
Sigh. The Right always seems so big on "personal responsibility" - crime rates influenced by social policy? Nonsense! Crime is the personal responsibility of the criminal who commits it! Social safety nets? Nonsense! If you are poor, that's your personal responsibility! Government-funded health care? Nonsense! You have personal responsibility to take care of your own health!
Responsible gun ownership? Hem, hem, well, (foot shuffling, looking away), that's not the same thing at all...
Sigh. The Right always seems so big on "personal responsibility" - crime rates influenced by social policy? Nonsense! Crime is the personal responsibility of the criminal who commits it! Social safety nets? Nonsense! If you are poor, that's your personal responsibility! Government-funded health care? Nonsense! You have personal responsibility to take care of your own health!
Responsible gun ownership? Hem, hem, well, (foot shuffling, looking away), that's not the same thing at all...
312
@Canuck and Roma
I don't remember writing that. CONSPIRACY!!! But my grammar improved while I was in a blackout......
@Lissa
To be completely fair, I called him my Sweetypie
I don't remember writing that. CONSPIRACY!!! But my grammar improved while I was in a blackout......
@Lissa
To be completely fair, I called him my Sweetypie
314
@310: I think you make a very good point correlating violence and poverty. I think statistics showing a decrease in overall crime during times of high employment and economic prosperity would back you up. I also agree that training in gun safety would be a valuable thing in this country considering, as I said, how many guns there are. The Eddie Eagle program sponsored by the NRA is a good example, and one that could be modified for an adult curriculum.
@312: I know you did, and you are very gracious to admit it. Seattleblues could benefit from your example. I mean, he doesn't even have inebriation to use as an excuse! :)
@312: I know you did, and you are very gracious to admit it. Seattleblues could benefit from your example. I mean, he doesn't even have inebriation to use as an excuse! :)
315
Good thing there weren't cars around when they were crafting the US Constitution, eh Backyard? The mind boggles...(when my kids get annoyed that I never applied for US citizenship for them, I tell them, "you'll thank me someday...")
316
BB
"The Right always seems so big on "personal responsibility" - crime rates influenced by social policy? Nonsense! Crime is the personal responsibility of the criminal who commits it! Social safety nets? Nonsense! If you are poor, that's your personal responsibility! Government-funded health care? Nonsense! You have personal responsibility to take care of your own health!"
Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm glad you finally made some sense! Doesn't that feel better, now?
But you ruin your epiphany with-
As for your last paragraph the Loughner incident proves you wrong. The right are the ones saying that he is responsible for his use of his weapon, not Sarah Palin or whatever bogeyman the left wants to blame.
And Canadian smugglers bringing weapons into Canada illegally seems to me to be your problem, not the result of US gun laws.
On your showing, I pay more for prescription drugs because of Canadian socialist medicine. R&D costs money, and Canada won't pay for this in their pre set pricing. So these companies take it out on us. In other words, I subsidize your drug prices. So, Americans have a real interest in ending socialist medicine in Canada, right?
Like it, hate it or don't care, the 2nd Amendment says what it says. If the will is there (for AMERICANS) to change it, we will. Otherwise it is NOT NOT NOT your business. Period. Full stop. Finis.
"The Right always seems so big on "personal responsibility" - crime rates influenced by social policy? Nonsense! Crime is the personal responsibility of the criminal who commits it! Social safety nets? Nonsense! If you are poor, that's your personal responsibility! Government-funded health care? Nonsense! You have personal responsibility to take care of your own health!"
Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm glad you finally made some sense! Doesn't that feel better, now?
But you ruin your epiphany with-
As for your last paragraph the Loughner incident proves you wrong. The right are the ones saying that he is responsible for his use of his weapon, not Sarah Palin or whatever bogeyman the left wants to blame.
And Canadian smugglers bringing weapons into Canada illegally seems to me to be your problem, not the result of US gun laws.
On your showing, I pay more for prescription drugs because of Canadian socialist medicine. R&D costs money, and Canada won't pay for this in their pre set pricing. So these companies take it out on us. In other words, I subsidize your drug prices. So, Americans have a real interest in ending socialist medicine in Canada, right?
Like it, hate it or don't care, the 2nd Amendment says what it says. If the will is there (for AMERICANS) to change it, we will. Otherwise it is NOT NOT NOT your business. Period. Full stop. Finis.
317
309: "If you need an example of civil disagreement I suggest you pay attention to the ongoing conversation between Roma, Canuck, and svensken in this thread."
Thanks Lissa. Y'know when I first started posting on a internet forum many years ago, I could be a bit of a name-calling hothead, especially when someone attacked me or my opinions. But then a guy -- a hardcore Libertarian -- joined our forum. He was almost constantly bashed by people but he remained unflappable and never resorted to name-calling or put-downs or other ad hominen attacks. I didn't agree with most of his positions, but his refusal to sling mud back at people impressed the hell out of me and he became my role model.
The left likes to blame the tools used, while the right likes to blame human nature. Both positions are pat, and simplistic, and perfect for sound bites, but lousy as a basis for public policy.
The left and right are both correct. The right is correct in that guns are not animate objects that commit murders on their own -- it's people that are responsible and murderers would probably commit their murders regardless of whether or not they had a gun -- but the left is correct in that people aren't the only issue. Guns (and the amount of ammunition) magnify the damage that people are capable of doing. Loughner would've likely killed less people had he been armed with only a 10 round clip instead of one that held 30 rounds and would've certainly killed less people had he only been armed with a knife.
Fighting over that fact just keeps us polarized as a nation and prevents exploration for the root causes of violence.
The root cause of the three most deadly shootings -- by Loughner, Nidal Hasan and the Virginia Tech murderer -- seems to be an angry, disturbed individual. How do we protect society from people like this without trampling on civil liberties? Or, since something caused them to become angry and disturbed in the first place, how do we prevent people from becoming angry and disturbed? Can we?
More...
Thanks Lissa. Y'know when I first started posting on a internet forum many years ago, I could be a bit of a name-calling hothead, especially when someone attacked me or my opinions. But then a guy -- a hardcore Libertarian -- joined our forum. He was almost constantly bashed by people but he remained unflappable and never resorted to name-calling or put-downs or other ad hominen attacks. I didn't agree with most of his positions, but his refusal to sling mud back at people impressed the hell out of me and he became my role model.
The left likes to blame the tools used, while the right likes to blame human nature. Both positions are pat, and simplistic, and perfect for sound bites, but lousy as a basis for public policy.
The left and right are both correct. The right is correct in that guns are not animate objects that commit murders on their own -- it's people that are responsible and murderers would probably commit their murders regardless of whether or not they had a gun -- but the left is correct in that people aren't the only issue. Guns (and the amount of ammunition) magnify the damage that people are capable of doing. Loughner would've likely killed less people had he been armed with only a 10 round clip instead of one that held 30 rounds and would've certainly killed less people had he only been armed with a knife.
Fighting over that fact just keeps us polarized as a nation and prevents exploration for the root causes of violence.
The root cause of the three most deadly shootings -- by Loughner, Nidal Hasan and the Virginia Tech murderer -- seems to be an angry, disturbed individual. How do we protect society from people like this without trampling on civil liberties? Or, since something caused them to become angry and disturbed in the first place, how do we prevent people from becoming angry and disturbed? Can we?
318
Seattleblues, what is your opinion on US intervention in other countries, both acknowledged (Afghanistan and Iraq) and unacknowledged (CIA everywhere else)? Because your answer will quite possibly nullify your statements about Canadians who are concerned about politics in the US.
319
Like it, hate it or don't care, the 2nd Amendment says what it says.
Seattleblues is correct here. It would be great (great from the point of view of those us who'd like stronger gun control, that is) if the 2nd said...
The people must have the right to keep and bear arms, but reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right (e.g. crazy people should not be allowed to keep and bear arms.)
or...
The people must have the right to keep and bear arms, but only as part of a well-regulated militia.
But it doesn't. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's clear ("the right . . . shall not be infringed") yet it's also vague (why is the militia phrase there? is that right contingent on being in a well-regulated militia or not? and, if not contingent, then why include the phrase?)
Seattleblues is correct here. It would be great (great from the point of view of those us who'd like stronger gun control, that is) if the 2nd said...
The people must have the right to keep and bear arms, but reasonable restrictions can be placed on this right (e.g. crazy people should not be allowed to keep and bear arms.)
or...
The people must have the right to keep and bear arms, but only as part of a well-regulated militia.
But it doesn't. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's clear ("the right . . . shall not be infringed") yet it's also vague (why is the militia phrase there? is that right contingent on being in a well-regulated militia or not? and, if not contingent, then why include the phrase?)
320
@309
You're right. Frustration with people like Svensken who know that their pet theory simply won't fly doesn't excuse rudeness.
Svensken,
You might do some research. The United States was founded on a lot of notions. Roman and Greek ideas of governance played a part. Locke and Montesquie and Hobbes influenced the men who wrote the 1789 Constitution. Some modern scholarship suggestst that some ideas may even have come from the Iriquois Confederation. The bulk of our legal system is lifted wholesale from the English common law system.
And it doesn't matter. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any laws, including gun registries, which conflict with it's provisions are simply illegal. What influenced the men who wrote it ais helpful in interpretation or academic pursuits, but not dispositive. Canadian law doesn't matter. British or French or Vietnamese or UN legal precedent is irrelevant. If we didn't owe our souls to them in massive debt and the constant threat of divesting dollars as their currency, Chinese opinions could go whistle. We abide by the sovereign law of this nation, not the opinions of the world.
I note that you never answer the central point I make, that all our rights are co-dependent. Violations without due process of my fathers 2nd Amendment rights give the opening for your first or 5th Amendment rights to be abrogated. If you think the popular will is there to change the 2nd Amendment, please attempt it. Otherwise, please respect it.
Canuck,
Thanks for your clarification of disdain and dislike for this nation. Your tag really says it all, you are not an American except by technicality, but the wholesale rejection of even the notion of citizenship here for your kids is telling. If you're raising them with your values, I'm thanking you right now for refusing them American citizenship. You don't have to wait for them to thank you.
FYI, drivers licensing has been addressed as a Constitutional issue, and resolved.
And Roma has it right. Jefferson advocated for regular revolution, saying that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots periodically. These men were revolutionaries who wanted their fledgling government fully aware that they too were susceptible to revolution. You won't ever hear a high school history teacher saying this, but it is true nonetheless. The sole reason for the right to bear arms (and the primary reason for governments to limit gun ownership) is to make revolution feasible. "Militia" referred to state military bodies with the military force to defy the federal government if necessary, not to a federal force.
And maybe she is further right that the time has come to change the clause. If the need is sufficiently compelling, this will happen. Until then, the 2nd Amendment is the law of this land.
Thank you for moving to Canada. It seems a better fit for you, and it removes one more person who dislikes this nation from the place. Now if only Obama would follow you....
More...
You're right. Frustration with people like Svensken who know that their pet theory simply won't fly doesn't excuse rudeness.
Svensken,
You might do some research. The United States was founded on a lot of notions. Roman and Greek ideas of governance played a part. Locke and Montesquie and Hobbes influenced the men who wrote the 1789 Constitution. Some modern scholarship suggestst that some ideas may even have come from the Iriquois Confederation. The bulk of our legal system is lifted wholesale from the English common law system.
And it doesn't matter. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any laws, including gun registries, which conflict with it's provisions are simply illegal. What influenced the men who wrote it ais helpful in interpretation or academic pursuits, but not dispositive. Canadian law doesn't matter. British or French or Vietnamese or UN legal precedent is irrelevant. If we didn't owe our souls to them in massive debt and the constant threat of divesting dollars as their currency, Chinese opinions could go whistle. We abide by the sovereign law of this nation, not the opinions of the world.
I note that you never answer the central point I make, that all our rights are co-dependent. Violations without due process of my fathers 2nd Amendment rights give the opening for your first or 5th Amendment rights to be abrogated. If you think the popular will is there to change the 2nd Amendment, please attempt it. Otherwise, please respect it.
Canuck,
Thanks for your clarification of disdain and dislike for this nation. Your tag really says it all, you are not an American except by technicality, but the wholesale rejection of even the notion of citizenship here for your kids is telling. If you're raising them with your values, I'm thanking you right now for refusing them American citizenship. You don't have to wait for them to thank you.
FYI, drivers licensing has been addressed as a Constitutional issue, and resolved.
And Roma has it right. Jefferson advocated for regular revolution, saying that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots periodically. These men were revolutionaries who wanted their fledgling government fully aware that they too were susceptible to revolution. You won't ever hear a high school history teacher saying this, but it is true nonetheless. The sole reason for the right to bear arms (and the primary reason for governments to limit gun ownership) is to make revolution feasible. "Militia" referred to state military bodies with the military force to defy the federal government if necessary, not to a federal force.
And maybe she is further right that the time has come to change the clause. If the need is sufficiently compelling, this will happen. Until then, the 2nd Amendment is the law of this land.
Thank you for moving to Canada. It seems a better fit for you, and it removes one more person who dislikes this nation from the place. Now if only Obama would follow you....
321
Seattleblues, I'd prefer for my kids to live in a country where they don't have to choose between a life-saving operation for one of their children and feeding the others, or being unable to marry the person they love if they happen to be gay...call me crazy, I guess, that's just the kind of "mum" I am...
322
Canada does not recognize general self defense as an adequate reason for having one, I think you must prove that your life is actually in danger.
Canuck, it seems to me that if you had to wait to prove that your life was actually in danger in order to obtain a gun for self-defense, it would be a little too late, wouldn't it?
I just did a Google search for "intruder killed by homeowner" and this was one of the first links: Intruder Shot And Killed By Lincoln Co. …. If this woman hadn't had a gun, she'd probably be the one killed. And there are probably countless similar situations like this in the U.S. each year.
Canuck, it seems to me that if you had to wait to prove that your life was actually in danger in order to obtain a gun for self-defense, it would be a little too late, wouldn't it?
I just did a Google search for "intruder killed by homeowner" and this was one of the first links: Intruder Shot And Killed By Lincoln Co. …. If this woman hadn't had a gun, she'd probably be the one killed. And there are probably countless similar situations like this in the U.S. each year.
Sheriff Chuck Mangion said 57-year-old Donna Jackson called 911 around 12:30 a.m. to report that she was home alone and a man was trying to break in her patio door. Jackson told the 911 dispatcher that the man was screaming and threatening to hurt her.
"They need to hurry. He's going to break this thing open. When he does, I'll have to kill him and I don't want to kill him," Jackson said during the 911 call.
For nearly 10 minutes the man continued banging at the door and yelling profanities, threatening the woman. "I can hear him banging the doors and yelling at her. I was scared for her," said Brenda Hart, a Lincoln County 911 dispatch who was on the phone with Jackson during the incident.
The man picked up a patio table and threw it through the glass door and entered the home. The woman then shot him in the chest, Mangion said.
Under state law, Jackson was in the right to take legal action in self defense.
323
@318
I never thought military intervention in either country well advised. The first Gulf War was the obvious invasion of one sovereign nation by another. The entire world has a compelling self interest in making it clear that this won't be tolerated.
Afganistan has been shown by the Russians and the British before them to be a tough nut to crack militarily. Why we didn't learn this lesson is a problem. Iraq could have been isolated and contained at massive savings to the US taxpayer in the latest adventure there, and at any rate no credible existential threat to the United States existed to justify war.
I thought I'd been fairly clear and fairly consistent. I don't opine about Italian politics while there, or the internal politics of other nations we visit while at our house. (Unless asked. I've had a number of stimulating train rides honestly discussing world events all accross Europe, and a neigbor and I will drink lemoncello and talk about politics all night on occasion, to our wives disgust.) Those are the legitimate right of the folks who live there to dispose of, and I've got no horse in that race.
There are occasions when 'purely internal' doesn't cut it. Wholesale murder or rape, or violations of basic human rights at least entitle the rest of the world to a voice, if not actual force to stop the behavior. This line is notoriously difficult to draw. Frankly, it also relies on economics and real politics. We defended Kuwait, but left Somalia a mess, and Cambodia still suffers from the fallout of the genocide there. Why? Oil. Plain and simple, we cannot maintain our way of life without a dependable energy supply. This may be unpleasant as a fact, but it is nonetheless true. We pick the places we intervene based on the goals and needs of our and our allies economies and political affiliations. It's messy, and it doesn't fit the clean narrative of the true believers, but it is true.
I just don't think that gay marriage or gun control make the cut. If Canada resents guns smuggled across their border, they need to come up with a solution. If Canada resents marriages sanctioned by their nation not being recognized by ours... well, I can't help you there. We are 2 different nations with much in common, but we also have some pretty stark differences. That these will show in international discussions is hardly surprising.
More...
I never thought military intervention in either country well advised. The first Gulf War was the obvious invasion of one sovereign nation by another. The entire world has a compelling self interest in making it clear that this won't be tolerated.
Afganistan has been shown by the Russians and the British before them to be a tough nut to crack militarily. Why we didn't learn this lesson is a problem. Iraq could have been isolated and contained at massive savings to the US taxpayer in the latest adventure there, and at any rate no credible existential threat to the United States existed to justify war.
I thought I'd been fairly clear and fairly consistent. I don't opine about Italian politics while there, or the internal politics of other nations we visit while at our house. (Unless asked. I've had a number of stimulating train rides honestly discussing world events all accross Europe, and a neigbor and I will drink lemoncello and talk about politics all night on occasion, to our wives disgust.) Those are the legitimate right of the folks who live there to dispose of, and I've got no horse in that race.
There are occasions when 'purely internal' doesn't cut it. Wholesale murder or rape, or violations of basic human rights at least entitle the rest of the world to a voice, if not actual force to stop the behavior. This line is notoriously difficult to draw. Frankly, it also relies on economics and real politics. We defended Kuwait, but left Somalia a mess, and Cambodia still suffers from the fallout of the genocide there. Why? Oil. Plain and simple, we cannot maintain our way of life without a dependable energy supply. This may be unpleasant as a fact, but it is nonetheless true. We pick the places we intervene based on the goals and needs of our and our allies economies and political affiliations. It's messy, and it doesn't fit the clean narrative of the true believers, but it is true.
I just don't think that gay marriage or gun control make the cut. If Canada resents guns smuggled across their border, they need to come up with a solution. If Canada resents marriages sanctioned by their nation not being recognized by ours... well, I can't help you there. We are 2 different nations with much in common, but we also have some pretty stark differences. That these will show in international discussions is hardly surprising.
324
The sole reason for the right to bear arms (and the primary reason for governments to limit gun ownership) is to make revolution feasible.
That's always been my understanding. The questions are: how will we know when a revolution is necessary? How will we know when our government becomes a tyranny? Is a violent revolution feasible in the 21st century? In the American Revolution, there were loyalists (Tories) but I believe they were only about 10-15% of the population. The majority of people were in favor of revolution. If we were to ever have another revolution, would that majority/minority split hold? Or would we end up with another civil war, but with a left/right split instead of a north/south split, with one political wing thinking a violent revolution is necessary, the other wing thinking they're crazy and independents going both ways?
"Militia" referred to state military bodies with the military force to defy the federal government if necessary, not to a federal force.
That's always been my understanding too but couldn't the intent of the 2nd be that the right to bear arms is continent on being part of a well-regulated state military body?
That's always been my understanding. The questions are: how will we know when a revolution is necessary? How will we know when our government becomes a tyranny? Is a violent revolution feasible in the 21st century? In the American Revolution, there were loyalists (Tories) but I believe they were only about 10-15% of the population. The majority of people were in favor of revolution. If we were to ever have another revolution, would that majority/minority split hold? Or would we end up with another civil war, but with a left/right split instead of a north/south split, with one political wing thinking a violent revolution is necessary, the other wing thinking they're crazy and independents going both ways?
"Militia" referred to state military bodies with the military force to defy the federal government if necessary, not to a federal force.
That's always been my understanding too but couldn't the intent of the 2nd be that the right to bear arms is continent on being part of a well-regulated state military body?
325
@320: See, you're still not listening. You know how I know? Because if you actually had taken what I said to heart you wouldn't have felt compelled to add that snotty little zinger at Svenken's expense. Your insults directed at Canuck are equally gratuitous, and one wonders why you expend your energy denigrating her parenting instead of answering her question. To wit: How do you reconcile the involvement of the United States diplomatically and militarily, both covert and otherwise, in the "business" of other sovereign nations with your insistence that all others keep their noses out of ours? I await your response.
326
@321
That came out unduly snarky. I just meant that you seem to have found a home that fits your tastes well. The United States is mainly a center right nation, many of whose policies seem to cause you irrritation. Congratulations on finding a good fit for your life in your adopted home.
For a while the slow pace of life, amazing food, art and architecture and general values had me considering expatriation in Italy. As it happened, I chose otherwise. (I'll save you and BB time. 'The Italians dodged a bullet there!') I don't hate Italy, obviously. The US is just a better fit for my choice of primary home. I truly believe that we have a lot to work on. Our health care system is a Frankensteins monster of private and public, gaining all the disadvantages and few of the advantages of either. We can be crass and short sighted and materialistic. We have made mistakes whose consequences we still are working out, like slavery or our foolishness in signing any treaties with native populations. But fundamentally, the spirit of self reliance and individuality, the optimism and cheerful good nature of this nation, mean America to me is the best place to live in the world.
That came out unduly snarky. I just meant that you seem to have found a home that fits your tastes well. The United States is mainly a center right nation, many of whose policies seem to cause you irrritation. Congratulations on finding a good fit for your life in your adopted home.
For a while the slow pace of life, amazing food, art and architecture and general values had me considering expatriation in Italy. As it happened, I chose otherwise. (I'll save you and BB time. 'The Italians dodged a bullet there!') I don't hate Italy, obviously. The US is just a better fit for my choice of primary home. I truly believe that we have a lot to work on. Our health care system is a Frankensteins monster of private and public, gaining all the disadvantages and few of the advantages of either. We can be crass and short sighted and materialistic. We have made mistakes whose consequences we still are working out, like slavery or our foolishness in signing any treaties with native populations. But fundamentally, the spirit of self reliance and individuality, the optimism and cheerful good nature of this nation, mean America to me is the best place to live in the world.
327
"Jefferson advocated for regular revolution, saying that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots periodically."
Wow. Tim McVeigh had the same ignorant interpretation of those words, too. He wore a T-shirt with those words on that same day he blew up the Federal Building. Go look up Shays Rebellion and understand the context before you throw things around like that.
The other silly thing is your reverential tone for dead guys. There's a real puerile arrogance that comes from American Exceptionalism--we have created demi-gods out of 300 year old men and haven't realized that others in humanity have progressed further than they did. We're not at the forefront of political innovation anymore, sorry to break it to you!
Wow. Tim McVeigh had the same ignorant interpretation of those words, too. He wore a T-shirt with those words on that same day he blew up the Federal Building. Go look up Shays Rebellion and understand the context before you throw things around like that.
The other silly thing is your reverential tone for dead guys. There's a real puerile arrogance that comes from American Exceptionalism--we have created demi-gods out of 300 year old men and haven't realized that others in humanity have progressed further than they did. We're not at the forefront of political innovation anymore, sorry to break it to you!
328
I'd prefer for my kids to [not] live in a country where they [are] unable to marry the person they love if they happen to be gay.
We'll get there eventually, Canuck. Slowly* but surely, people are going realize that same-sex marriage poses no threat whatsoever to opposite-sex marriage.
*After all, it took us until 1920 to give women the right to vote (although Canada wasn't much better on that count: "About a year and a quarter later, at the beginning of 1919, the right to vote was extended to all women in the Act to confer the Electoral Franchise upon Women")
We'll get there eventually, Canuck. Slowly* but surely, people are going realize that same-sex marriage poses no threat whatsoever to opposite-sex marriage.
*After all, it took us until 1920 to give women the right to vote (although Canada wasn't much better on that count: "About a year and a quarter later, at the beginning of 1919, the right to vote was extended to all women in the Act to confer the Electoral Franchise upon Women")
329
@324 So far, IMO Loyalism is now defined as allegiance to the economic elite (just as it really was with the colonial loyalists)--whether knowingly or not. Perhaps this is why we have many across the political spectrum defending the right of the rich to be free of higher taxes.
330
"or our foolishness in signing any treaties with native populations." Yes, we should have been honest and kept on with that good ol' time genocide.
332
dirac, what's your understanding of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment?
So far, IMO Loyalism is now defined as allegiance to the economic elite (just as it really was with the colonial loyalists)--whether knowingly or not. Perhaps this is why we have many across the political spectrum defending the right of the rich to be free of higher taxes.
With the growing concentration of wealth and income among the richest Americans, some people might argue we're on our way to a "tyranny of the economic elite."
So far, IMO Loyalism is now defined as allegiance to the economic elite (just as it really was with the colonial loyalists)--whether knowingly or not. Perhaps this is why we have many across the political spectrum defending the right of the rich to be free of higher taxes.
With the growing concentration of wealth and income among the richest Americans, some people might argue we're on our way to a "tyranny of the economic elite."
333
Simplistic, SB, so very simplistic. I have to say, there are some clear advantages in adhering to simple worldviews that do not admit any complexity. But the world is not so simple.
For exaple: "The right are the ones saying that he is responsible for his use of his weapon, not Sarah Palin or whatever bogeyman the left wants to blame." I'm not seeing very many people saying that Sarah Palin is to blame, full stop. What I am seeing is an acknowledgement that there is more to the story than a simple "He did it." My view is that Loughner is mentally ill, that his illness went untreated if not unnoticed, and that his violence was the result. I think he should be locked away somewhere that he cannot pose a danger to others. I also think that the broader social environment influenced the way that his illness manifested itself, and the targets that his paranoid mind chose to focus on. I recognize that his particular obsessions seem to have a lot in common with the talking points of the anti-government libertarian fringe. I also think that the free availability of a weapon and ammunition allowed him to do far more damage than he otherwise would have.
"And Canadian smugglers bringing weapons into Canada illegally seems to me to be your problem, not the result of US gun laws." Spoken like a true conservative - negative externalities? What are they? Someone else's problem. It would be easier to accept if I hadn't spent ten years listening to how Canada needed to secure its borders because terrorists were trying to enter the US from here. How is that OUR problem if American guns entering the US are not YOUR problem?
"On your showing, I pay more for prescription drugs because of Canadian socialist medicine. R&D costs money, and Canada won't pay for this in their pre set pricing." Once again, simplistic. The reality is a lot more nuanced:
I admit, it isn't as pithy as "Canadian socialized medicine costs me money!" but there it is. Life is complex.
More...
For exaple: "The right are the ones saying that he is responsible for his use of his weapon, not Sarah Palin or whatever bogeyman the left wants to blame." I'm not seeing very many people saying that Sarah Palin is to blame, full stop. What I am seeing is an acknowledgement that there is more to the story than a simple "He did it." My view is that Loughner is mentally ill, that his illness went untreated if not unnoticed, and that his violence was the result. I think he should be locked away somewhere that he cannot pose a danger to others. I also think that the broader social environment influenced the way that his illness manifested itself, and the targets that his paranoid mind chose to focus on. I recognize that his particular obsessions seem to have a lot in common with the talking points of the anti-government libertarian fringe. I also think that the free availability of a weapon and ammunition allowed him to do far more damage than he otherwise would have.
"And Canadian smugglers bringing weapons into Canada illegally seems to me to be your problem, not the result of US gun laws." Spoken like a true conservative - negative externalities? What are they? Someone else's problem. It would be easier to accept if I hadn't spent ten years listening to how Canada needed to secure its borders because terrorists were trying to enter the US from here. How is that OUR problem if American guns entering the US are not YOUR problem?
"On your showing, I pay more for prescription drugs because of Canadian socialist medicine. R&D costs money, and Canada won't pay for this in their pre set pricing." Once again, simplistic. The reality is a lot more nuanced:
The Canadian system takes advantage of centralized buying by the provincial governments that have more market heft and buy in bulk, lowering prices. By contrast, the U.S. has explicit laws that prohibit Medicare or Medicaid from negotiating drug prices. In addition, price negotiations by Canadian health insurers are based on evaluations of the clinical effectiveness of prescription drugs, allowing the relative prices of therapeutically-similar drugs to be considered in context. The Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board also has the authority to set a fair and reasonable price on patented products, either comparing it to similar drugs already on the market, or by taking the average price in seven developed nations. Prices are also lowered through more limited patent protection in Canada. In the U.S., a drug patent may be extended five years to make up for time lost in development. Some generic drugs are thus available on Canadian shelves sooner.
The pharmaceutical industry is important in both countries, though both are net importers of drugs. Both countries spend about the same amount of their GDP on pharmaceutical research, about 0.1% annually.
I admit, it isn't as pithy as "Canadian socialized medicine costs me money!" but there it is. Life is complex.
334
@332: Well, I don't understand it, honestly. There's clearly ambiguity. However, if the author of that text gave any precedent to clauses and phrases, then that's telling. What's the first phrase? "A well-regulated Militia..." Keep in mind that only two words are capitalized: State and Militia. People (not person or persons, mind you), comprised of a group of individuals, is not capitalized. It's hard to tell what that really means, but I have a feeling the Militia thing is not a throw-away issue in the author's eyes. Also, nowhere is there an explicit individual right in my view because of this use of people; it's also an inherent acknowledgement of the necessity of society--which I think they took for granted back in those days.
335
Thanks dirac. Sorry I wasn't more clear with my question, though. What I meant was: what's your understanding of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment regardless of the militia clause. In other words, why do you think they wanted people, either on their own or as part of a militia, to have the right to bear arms?
336
"The security of a free State" usually has the connotation that this is always for the necessity of rebellion but I'd argue that this is also very open-ended: it could be national security, it could be to call Militia's to put down rebellions. Also, if you want to go there (the rebellion route), be prepared to argue for the individual ownership of low-yield nuclear devices and other high-tech warfare so that the individual can be on the same footing as the State.
337
Thanks again dirac. I actually erred above when I said "that's always been my understanding" in response to Seattleblues writing "The sole reason for the right to bear arms (and the primary reason for governments to limit gun ownership) is to make revolution feasible."
It's always been my understanding that the the primary reason, or one of the main reasons, for the 2nd is to make revolution feasible, not the sole reason. I believe, like you, that there were other reasons as well...defending against an invading power would likely have been one. However, since the colonists had used violent revolution to throw off the yoke of tyranny (as they saw it anyway), it seems very likely to me that wanted to establish the right of the populace to bear arms in case that ever became necessary again. And, as I've mentioned before, I think this is why the U.S. has the 2nd and countries like Canada and Australia don't.
Viewing "shall not be infringed" very strictly, individuals should be allowed to bear any type of arms: machine guns, tanks, grenades, mortars, nuclear devices, what-have-you. After all, the 2nd doesn't define what "arms" are, or say what arms are not allowed. But courts, I'm guessing, have ruled that "arms" is not unlimited, in the same way that free speech is not unlimited. It's your basic "reasonableness" test.
It's always been my understanding that the the primary reason, or one of the main reasons, for the 2nd is to make revolution feasible, not the sole reason. I believe, like you, that there were other reasons as well...defending against an invading power would likely have been one. However, since the colonists had used violent revolution to throw off the yoke of tyranny (as they saw it anyway), it seems very likely to me that wanted to establish the right of the populace to bear arms in case that ever became necessary again. And, as I've mentioned before, I think this is why the U.S. has the 2nd and countries like Canada and Australia don't.
Viewing "shall not be infringed" very strictly, individuals should be allowed to bear any type of arms: machine guns, tanks, grenades, mortars, nuclear devices, what-have-you. After all, the 2nd doesn't define what "arms" are, or say what arms are not allowed. But courts, I'm guessing, have ruled that "arms" is not unlimited, in the same way that free speech is not unlimited. It's your basic "reasonableness" test.
338
@337 Thanks. The other controversial reason for a second amendment is the need to keep the slave population in control (another type of rebellion quashing). The elite in early America were not without their hypocrisy, but I am not so sure about that theory.
340
You know, Seattleblues, as far as I'm concerned, discussions about politics in general can be interesting, informative, whatever. The fact that you can dismiss my US citizenship as a "technicality", when I was born in the States, and lived there for 22 years, well, whatever, I really don't care. What I DO care about, what supercedes all other discussions, is your insistence in referring to gay people as "deviant." I don't care how conciliatory you are in other regards, in this area, you are appalling, and it defines you. It offends me completely, when I think about the great people I know in my community, and how with one broad stroke you dismiss them so comprehensively. This is not a difference of opinion about politics. I may disagree with other commenters about gun policy, or various other political matters, but none of them dismiss, wholesale, an entire group of people. We are united, at least, in our feeling that everyone is equally deserving of love and friendship. You are not. If your outlook is what defines a Christian, you are doing a poor job of emulating your boss.
341
You're welcome dirac, and thanks for that link.
Bogus said it was clear that the Second Amendment was drafted to protect Southern militias, not broadly allow individuals to arm themselves.
Certainly an interesting theory and I'm sure it is very clear to Bogus (what a great name: the Bogus theory) but I'm also sure many other people -- historians, constitutional scholars and the like -- would differ (although historian Garry Wills apparently agrees.)
Bogus said it was clear that the Second Amendment was drafted to protect Southern militias, not broadly allow individuals to arm themselves.
Certainly an interesting theory and I'm sure it is very clear to Bogus (what a great name: the Bogus theory) but I'm also sure many other people -- historians, constitutional scholars and the like -- would differ (although historian Garry Wills apparently agrees.)
342
Roma: FYI, before I move on: here's the two links I read on this:
http://www.potowmack.org/garwills.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
Wills took the approach that Madison was using the 2nd and 3rd amendment as political maneuvering before Bogus wrote his paper. I find it fascinating and compelling, but am still cautious. However, Wills' paper has a very good explanation of the 2nd Amendment--a definite plausible alternative to the consensus insurrectionist theories.
http://www.potowmack.org/garwills.html
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
Wills took the approach that Madison was using the 2nd and 3rd amendment as political maneuvering before Bogus wrote his paper. I find it fascinating and compelling, but am still cautious. However, Wills' paper has a very good explanation of the 2nd Amendment--a definite plausible alternative to the consensus insurrectionist theories.
344
@ Seattleblues
So I was right and you were wrong. Good to know.
Check out the Constitution of the Roman Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio…
So I was right and you were wrong. Good to know.
Check out the Constitution of the Roman Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio…
345
dirac, thanks for those links. Haven't had time to read them yet but will get around to it eventually. I appreciate you bringing that theory into the discussion. Even if I don't agree with it, (or don't end up agreeing with it after more reading), I still like learning something new and interesting and don't mind being challenged on something I always thought to be true.
*
Canuck, I knew someone on a forum years ago who called gays & lesbians "deviant", using the same reasoning that Seattleblues did @ 214. But that reasoning is, of course, just an excuse to get in a mean-spirited dig at gays & lesbians. Left-handed people, blue-eyed people, blondes, dwarfs, and people with autism deviate from the norm too but no one refers to them as deviants.
*
Canuck, I knew someone on a forum years ago who called gays & lesbians "deviant", using the same reasoning that Seattleblues did @ 214. But that reasoning is, of course, just an excuse to get in a mean-spirited dig at gays & lesbians. Left-handed people, blue-eyed people, blondes, dwarfs, and people with autism deviate from the norm too but no one refers to them as deviants.
346
Interestingly, Roma, there are half as many redheads as gay people worldwide, I wonder how that figures into SB's deviancy premise?
347
@Canuck
As a Deviant, I can tell you that I'm highly suspecting that the Deviant numbers have been underestimated.
As a Deviant, I can tell you that I'm highly suspecting that the Deviant numbers have been underestimated.
348
One can only hope, svensken. Makes for a much more enjoyable, not to mention better dressed, world.
349
@340
I have never suggested that any human being should be denied love and friendship. Nor would I.
I have never expressed hatred for anyone, gay or straight on this blog. Nor would I.
Homosexuality is by definition deviant sexuality. Because something is hard to acknowledge makes it no less true. Because it challenges someone elses pre-conceptions or need for self excuse makes it no less true. I don't use it as a mean spirited dig at anyone, but as a simple statement of what is incontrovertibly true.
I have never suggested that any human being should be denied love and friendship. Nor would I.
I have never expressed hatred for anyone, gay or straight on this blog. Nor would I.
Homosexuality is by definition deviant sexuality. Because something is hard to acknowledge makes it no less true. Because it challenges someone elses pre-conceptions or need for self excuse makes it no less true. I don't use it as a mean spirited dig at anyone, but as a simple statement of what is incontrovertibly true.
350
Svensken,
I've heard nearly every theory as to what influenced the founding of this nation, as I was a poli sci major in college. The founders were greedy plutocrats or they were demi-gods. They were racist pigs or they were englightened men doing the best they could with a compromise. They were calculating speculators or they were brave men and women who put all their property and their very lives on the line for a principle. Professors must publish or die, seemingly, and after 200 years and more of doing so, to avoid repetition, the theories get more and more abstruse.
The wiki article you link to seems to say that while no written constitution existed in ancient Rome, the notions of governance were remarkably similar to ours. Okay. With no actual Roman document to refer to, that claim is a bit hard to substantiate without some fairly heavy research. But for purposes of discussion I'll accept that whoever wrote the article did that research.
This doesn't change the salient fact. Once established our Constution became the supreme law of the land. Other countries documents or laws, the influences under which the writers of the Constution worked and so on are less important than the actual words of the actual document. We can and should learn from the experiences other nations undergo, the experiments in government they undertake. We can and should know our own history for insight into why we are who we are. But in the end for purposes of law, the defining thing is the Constitution as it was written and amended.
They were not infallible. It's why there's a process for changing the contract. They knew very well that the document must change or become irrelevant. It's changing the document outside of that process that is the threat, not change itself.
More...
I've heard nearly every theory as to what influenced the founding of this nation, as I was a poli sci major in college. The founders were greedy plutocrats or they were demi-gods. They were racist pigs or they were englightened men doing the best they could with a compromise. They were calculating speculators or they were brave men and women who put all their property and their very lives on the line for a principle. Professors must publish or die, seemingly, and after 200 years and more of doing so, to avoid repetition, the theories get more and more abstruse.
The wiki article you link to seems to say that while no written constitution existed in ancient Rome, the notions of governance were remarkably similar to ours. Okay. With no actual Roman document to refer to, that claim is a bit hard to substantiate without some fairly heavy research. But for purposes of discussion I'll accept that whoever wrote the article did that research.
This doesn't change the salient fact. Once established our Constution became the supreme law of the land. Other countries documents or laws, the influences under which the writers of the Constution worked and so on are less important than the actual words of the actual document. We can and should learn from the experiences other nations undergo, the experiments in government they undertake. We can and should know our own history for insight into why we are who we are. But in the end for purposes of law, the defining thing is the Constitution as it was written and amended.
They were not infallible. It's why there's a process for changing the contract. They knew very well that the document must change or become irrelevant. It's changing the document outside of that process that is the threat, not change itself.
351
All rancour aside, SeattleBlues, if you are interested in Second Amendment issues you really should read the Wills paper that dirac linked to in post 342 above. It's a very interesting analysis of the amendment, its language, and its origins that posits a different theory as to its intent. (You probably will not be persuaded by it, but it is a good read nonetheless.)
352
@Seattleblues
You obviously haven't studied that deeply because I remember learning about this in Elementary school.
"I don't get to limit the rights of deviant idiots like Savage to speak because I find these kinds of things offensive."
You used deviant in an insulting manner like someone from the south would use nigger. Don't defend your bigotry, change it.
You obviously haven't studied that deeply because I remember learning about this in Elementary school.
"I don't get to limit the rights of deviant idiots like Savage to speak because I find these kinds of things offensive."
You used deviant in an insulting manner like someone from the south would use nigger. Don't defend your bigotry, change it.
353
And while your at it. Could you explain to me why Micheal Obama hates America? I keep hearing this right wing rhetoric but there's never an answer.
" Barak Obama offends me as president for a lot of reasons. His wife hates this country."
" Barak Obama offends me as president for a lot of reasons. His wife hates this country."
354
" With no actual Roman document to refer to, that claim is a bit hard to substantiate without some fairly heavy research. But for purposes of discussion I'll accept that whoever wrote the article did that research."
I, too, knew this from school even though I did no extensive studies on the matter. Many have already done the research for you. For a current exposition on the parallels and influences of the Roman Republic on early American government, I suggest you read at least part of the book, Nemesis by Chalmers Johnson.
I, too, knew this from school even though I did no extensive studies on the matter. Many have already done the research for you. For a current exposition on the parallels and influences of the Roman Republic on early American government, I suggest you read at least part of the book, Nemesis by Chalmers Johnson.
355
Homosexuality is by definition deviant sexuality. Because something is hard to acknowledge makes it no less true. Because it challenges someone elses pre-conceptions or need for self excuse makes it no less true. I don't use it as a mean spirited dig at anyone, but as a simple statement of what is incontrovertibly true.
Seattleblues, what on earth do you mean "hard to acknowledge" or "self-excuse"? There isn't a gay or lesbian alive who isn't fully aware that their sexuality differs from the norm or claims that it's not true that they don't differ from the norm.
Look, either own up to the fact that you like getting in a dig at gays & lesbians or don't refer to them as deviants. Calling them deviants while pretending you're doing it just because it's definitionally correct is really immature.
Seattleblues, what on earth do you mean "hard to acknowledge" or "self-excuse"? There isn't a gay or lesbian alive who isn't fully aware that their sexuality differs from the norm or claims that it's not true that they don't differ from the norm.
Look, either own up to the fact that you like getting in a dig at gays & lesbians or don't refer to them as deviants. Calling them deviants while pretending you're doing it just because it's definitionally correct is really immature.
356
@354
Thanks for the link and the reading recommendation. Well written books on any subject are hard to come by, so I appreciate any advice on what others have found. The Wills link I found very interesting. I'll look up the book you reference.
But I'd still like to see someone explain why the sources of inspiration for the Constitution are more important than the actual Constitution. I personally think original intent a helpful but far from conclusive metric, since academics can provide attorneys with any kind of theory of what the honorable gentlemen meant by 'well regulated militia' or any of a thousand phrases from our founding document. In the end, isn't the Constitution the standard by which we measure all law in this nation, whatever sources informed it?
@352 and 355
I can only say what my state of mind in writing something is, not what the state of mind those reading it may be. But yes, deviant has pejorative connotations as well as strict definitions If deviant is so difficult to hear, I don't need to use the word.
Thanks for the link and the reading recommendation. Well written books on any subject are hard to come by, so I appreciate any advice on what others have found. The Wills link I found very interesting. I'll look up the book you reference.
But I'd still like to see someone explain why the sources of inspiration for the Constitution are more important than the actual Constitution. I personally think original intent a helpful but far from conclusive metric, since academics can provide attorneys with any kind of theory of what the honorable gentlemen meant by 'well regulated militia' or any of a thousand phrases from our founding document. In the end, isn't the Constitution the standard by which we measure all law in this nation, whatever sources informed it?
@352 and 355
I can only say what my state of mind in writing something is, not what the state of mind those reading it may be. But yes, deviant has pejorative connotations as well as strict definitions If deviant is so difficult to hear, I don't need to use the word.
357
If a Canadian may have an opinion on the topic, I'd say the question of intent is important precisely because "academics can provide attorneys with any kind of theory of what the honorable gentlemen meant by 'well regulated militia' or any of a thousand phrases." Statements - especially "simple" statements - can be interpreted in different ways. When the law of the land depends on the interpretation, who is to determine which interpretation is correct?
Put another way: one group of academics has already provided attorneys with a theory of what was meant by "keep and bear arms" and "well-regulated militia." Other academics and attorneys may have another theory. Why is the question declared settled now?
Put another way: one group of academics has already provided attorneys with a theory of what was meant by "keep and bear arms" and "well-regulated militia." Other academics and attorneys may have another theory. Why is the question declared settled now?
358
Thank you Seattleblues. I'm curious...do you have any gay/lesbian friends, or gay/lesbian people you know pretty well? I have a gay friend I've known for over 30 years and I've heard plenty of stories from him about all the put-downs he's had to hear over the years. You and I, as straight guys, didn't (and don't) have to deal with that kind of shit. Also, while you seem supportive of the right of same-sex civil unions (if not same-sex marriage), I get the sense that the very idea of two people of the same sex loving each other and being affectionate with each other bothers you and, if I'm correct with that conclusion, I'm curious why?
But I'd still like to see someone explain why the sources of inspiration for the Constitution are more important than the actual Constitution.
I don't think it's that the sources, or the intent, is more important. I think it's that those who have to try to interpret the Constitution rely (or may rely) on intent as a guide. The 2nd, for example, really isn't clear. The use of the militia phrase makes it unclear (although, I suppose, you may not agree.)
But I'd still like to see someone explain why the sources of inspiration for the Constitution are more important than the actual Constitution.
I don't think it's that the sources, or the intent, is more important. I think it's that those who have to try to interpret the Constitution rely (or may rely) on intent as a guide. The 2nd, for example, really isn't clear. The use of the militia phrase makes it unclear (although, I suppose, you may not agree.)
359
Statements - especially "simple" statements - can be interpreted in different ways.
Exactly. One one hand, compared to how verbose our modern-day laws are, it's refreshing to see a law that is so simple -- and therefore seemingly clear -- like the 2nd. On the other, one of the reasons modern-days laws are so verbose is because simple statements really aren't (always) so clear. They can be subject to many different interpretations so lawmakers try to cover every single possible base and generate hundreds of words in doing so. If the 2nd was being written today it would be a far different creature.
Exactly. One one hand, compared to how verbose our modern-day laws are, it's refreshing to see a law that is so simple -- and therefore seemingly clear -- like the 2nd. On the other, one of the reasons modern-days laws are so verbose is because simple statements really aren't (always) so clear. They can be subject to many different interpretations so lawmakers try to cover every single possible base and generate hundreds of words in doing so. If the 2nd was being written today it would be a far different creature.
360
@357-359
Original intent as a means of judicial interpretation has been vilified and loudly praised, depending on the source. If you google the term, you'll find commentary on it crossing this spectrum.
In general, those who embrace it do so on the following grounds. All language is vague (my favorite line from a Stoppard play is 'you understand we are tied down to a language which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style') so the only way to get at the heart of legislation or Constitutional provisions is to put yourself in the mind of the writer of these legal instruments. An abundance of written material exists on which to base conclusions about what these writers were thinking. In the case of the Constitution minutes of deliberation on the document from the Constitutional convention, letters written to friends and family from delegates and authors, and essay material like the Federalist Papers all combine to give us a fair notion of what was intended. In the case of current legislation deliberations on the part of comittees or the legislative body, and sometimes living witnesses from the sponsors of the legislation serve the same purpose. Having the means to interpret intent at hand, no viable excuse exists for not doing so.
On the 'con' side are a few arguments. Among them, language is indeed subject to interpretation, but how much more are the minds of people dead for two and a half centuries? We rely on the existing writings of these people, subject to mis-interpretation as surely as the language of law or of the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a contract, and in general, contract law doesn't weigh intent of signatories to a contract. It relies on agreement between the parties as to what terms mean. It relies on judicial interpretation of contractual terms in case the parties dispute such terms. Most compellingly, it relies on the good faith of those signing the contract or held to its' terms. Without it, the contract is a paper tiger, for the precise reason of the ambiguity of language. So, on the 'con' side the very ambiguity of language seen as a problem becomes a tool. It is a tool for interpretation as felt social or political change dictates. It allows for a living document which 'alters as it alteration finds.' For the opponents of original intent, the use of it makes of that living document a dead artifact.
Personally, I tend to draw a middle line. Intent matters. The Constitution is not a simple contract, but the means by which we govern ourselves, all heterogenous 300 million or more of us. The provisions should be adhered to as they were intended by the writers, unless a compelling case can be made for change. At all times the notions of liberty and self determination which lie at the core of the principles which formed our Constitution should be held sancrosanct. At all times government should be held to be the solution of last resort, when private solutions to the problem addressed have been shown to be ineffective but the problem has been shown to require being addressed. At the same time, some latitude in interpretation means that we don't need to amend it to allow driver licensing, or changes in IRS policy, or other mundane matters. We can save that process for fundamental alterattions in whast we understand government to be for. For me, for example, circumscribing the 2nd Amendment is just such a fundamental alteration. The Supreme Court found just this principle in Heller, stating that the prefatory clause 'A well regulated militia' did not limit the operant clause 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon' except as the courts have found so far to be the case. (Unusual or dangerous weapons like automatic rifles or hand fired rockets, mentally ill or felonious persons etc.)
Research original intent for yourselves though, by all means. I'm not an attorney or an erudite legal scholar, so I could have mis-stated the pro and con arguments. In any case, it's a question that the finest legal minds this country has produced are divided on, so no matter what else it is, it makes fascinating reading.
More...
Original intent as a means of judicial interpretation has been vilified and loudly praised, depending on the source. If you google the term, you'll find commentary on it crossing this spectrum.
In general, those who embrace it do so on the following grounds. All language is vague (my favorite line from a Stoppard play is 'you understand we are tied down to a language which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style') so the only way to get at the heart of legislation or Constitutional provisions is to put yourself in the mind of the writer of these legal instruments. An abundance of written material exists on which to base conclusions about what these writers were thinking. In the case of the Constitution minutes of deliberation on the document from the Constitutional convention, letters written to friends and family from delegates and authors, and essay material like the Federalist Papers all combine to give us a fair notion of what was intended. In the case of current legislation deliberations on the part of comittees or the legislative body, and sometimes living witnesses from the sponsors of the legislation serve the same purpose. Having the means to interpret intent at hand, no viable excuse exists for not doing so.
On the 'con' side are a few arguments. Among them, language is indeed subject to interpretation, but how much more are the minds of people dead for two and a half centuries? We rely on the existing writings of these people, subject to mis-interpretation as surely as the language of law or of the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a contract, and in general, contract law doesn't weigh intent of signatories to a contract. It relies on agreement between the parties as to what terms mean. It relies on judicial interpretation of contractual terms in case the parties dispute such terms. Most compellingly, it relies on the good faith of those signing the contract or held to its' terms. Without it, the contract is a paper tiger, for the precise reason of the ambiguity of language. So, on the 'con' side the very ambiguity of language seen as a problem becomes a tool. It is a tool for interpretation as felt social or political change dictates. It allows for a living document which 'alters as it alteration finds.' For the opponents of original intent, the use of it makes of that living document a dead artifact.
Personally, I tend to draw a middle line. Intent matters. The Constitution is not a simple contract, but the means by which we govern ourselves, all heterogenous 300 million or more of us. The provisions should be adhered to as they were intended by the writers, unless a compelling case can be made for change. At all times the notions of liberty and self determination which lie at the core of the principles which formed our Constitution should be held sancrosanct. At all times government should be held to be the solution of last resort, when private solutions to the problem addressed have been shown to be ineffective but the problem has been shown to require being addressed. At the same time, some latitude in interpretation means that we don't need to amend it to allow driver licensing, or changes in IRS policy, or other mundane matters. We can save that process for fundamental alterattions in whast we understand government to be for. For me, for example, circumscribing the 2nd Amendment is just such a fundamental alteration. The Supreme Court found just this principle in Heller, stating that the prefatory clause 'A well regulated militia' did not limit the operant clause 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon' except as the courts have found so far to be the case. (Unusual or dangerous weapons like automatic rifles or hand fired rockets, mentally ill or felonious persons etc.)
Research original intent for yourselves though, by all means. I'm not an attorney or an erudite legal scholar, so I could have mis-stated the pro and con arguments. In any case, it's a question that the finest legal minds this country has produced are divided on, so no matter what else it is, it makes fascinating reading.
361
Cheap Herve Leger Skirts Sale
Herve Leger Skirts
Shop For Herve Leger Skirts
Buy 2010 Herve Leger Dress
Discount Herve Leger Outlet Store
Herve Leger A-Line Bandage Skirt
Herve leger Banded Skirt Mini Dress
Herve Leger Skirts
Shop For Herve Leger Skirts
Buy 2010 Herve Leger Dress
Discount Herve Leger Outlet Store
Herve Leger A-Line Bandage Skirt
Herve leger Banded Skirt Mini Dress
362
I harmonise with your conclusions and will thirstily look progressive to your coming updates.
foam mattress
foam mattress
363
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
364
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
365
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
366
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
367
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
368
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
369
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
370
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
371
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
372
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
373
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
374
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
375
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
376
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
377
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
378
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
379
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
380
Comment Pulled
(Spam)
Comment Policy
381
Superbly written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a far better place..
Visit Artist All Opera
Superbly written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a far better place..
Visit Artist All Opera
382
Wonderful illustrated information. I thank you about that. No doubt it will be very useful for my future projects. Would like to see some other posts on the same subject!
free online poker
Wonderful illustrated information. I thank you about that. No doubt it will be very useful for my future projects. Would like to see some other posts on the same subject!
free online poker
383
Thank you for such a well written article. It’s full of insightful information and entertaining descriptions. Your point of view is the best among many.
Learn More About Due Fuar
Thank you for such a well written article. It’s full of insightful information and entertaining descriptions. Your point of view is the best among many.
Learn More About Due Fuar
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (383) RSS