jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (80 posts)

Consequences from the Tucson Shooting.

  1. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

    Time to take another look at gun control. How many people go hunting with a handgun or an asault weapon? These guns are made for hunting people. No one has any business packing a 9mm Glock with a 30+ round magazine. These weapons need tighter control and need to be put in the same class as fully automatic weapons where a special permit is needed. Here again it's the classic case where a few (the mentally unbalanced) out there screw it all up for the responsible gun owners.

    1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
      BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So you're content to allow the actions of a nutcase affect gun ownership privileges for everybody?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Gun regulations are ineffective, inadequate and full of loopholes.

        MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN HAVE EASY ACCESS TO WEAPONS

        The county boards that issue concealed weapons permits rely on applicants to self disclose mental illness. Kent County Clerk Mary Hollinrake, told the Grand Rapids Press that although officials are required to deny weapons permits to people with mental illness they have no way of verifying information supplied by applicants.

            In 2005, Kent County Judge Paul Sullivan overturned a local board requirement that forced applicants to produce a doctor’s note attesting to their mental fitness.
            Although the state law requires the Kent County Sheriff to verify the mental health of an applicant for a concealed weapon, Sullivan ruled the county’s verification requirements were “void and unenforceable.”

        This creates a serious loophole in the gun law.

            Wallace Duffin, a member of the Kent County board for the past 9½ years, said applicants are asked if they have ever been committed “voluntarily or involuntarily” to a mental health institution.

            “It depends on the truthfulness of the applicant to some extent,” Duffin said. “We are somewhat limited in our ability to delve into a person’s mental health.”

        Lt. Chris McIntire, commander of the Rockford State Police Post and a member of the Kent County Concealed Weapons Board, told the Press that in his three years on the board it has never refused an application on mental health grounds.

        According to State Police records there are 255,874 current concealed weapons permits in Michigan.

    2. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No it isn't time to take a look at gun control! That's a knee jerk reaction that wouldn't have prevented the incident in AZ, nor would control of free speech, the other thing the left espouses!

      Tell me why do those on the left HATE freedom?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Just curious, who on the left has advocated "controlling free speech?" Liberals are strong supporters of free speech. Most of us do support more effective handgun control. Why are you against effective handgun control?

        1. BillyDRitchie profile image60
          BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Except of course when it is speech they do not agree with.....

        2. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011 … be-danger/

          Sen Clyburn for one! Yes liberals are all for free speech, as long as it's in line with their beliefs! That's why the FCC is going to control the Internet. That's why the dems want to bring back the fairness doctrine. Yup, those liberals are all about free speech, free liberal speech!

          Oh and let's not forget Sharpton's efforts to control speech!

          http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/shar … /id/378094

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What Clyburn advocates is the Fairness doctrine, implemented by the FCC in 1949, repealed under Ronald Reagan. There is NO censorship. 

            “The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.”

                  Steve Rendall of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

            The same people who insist on twisting the news, oppose a standard of balanced reporting.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Pshaw.
              The Left "side" has much opinion that is indeed UNbalanced.  The media should never be forced to present an unbalanced view of things.  There really are NOT two sides to every story, no matter how much the liberals keep hollering.

            2. lady_love158 profile image59
              lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Really? This is a quote from Clyburn in the source I posted which I guess you didn't bother to read.



              Sure sounds like something other than the Fairness Doctrine, which I could argue is also a method to control free speech!
              Now you have ABSOULETLY NO CREDIBILITY! lololol

              1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Ummm .. anybody see a quote? Help me out.

                1. lady_love158 profile image59
                  lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'

                  'Free speech is as free speech does,' he said. 'You cannot yell ‘fire' in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.'"

                  Oh you could read the article but I guess you won't bother once you deem the source is a right wing nut!

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I guess you approve this example of free speech.

                    *On June 12, 2010, Rep. Giffords' very own Republican opponent Jesse Kelly held an event advertised locally as follows: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 With Jesse Kelly." Get that again. Remove Giffords. Shoot an M16.

              2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The Arizona legislature, in a rare display of intelligent response to a crisis, has passed this legislation protecting the funeral attendees. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ … asses.html

                I'm sure you feel this is a violation of a group of hateful conservatives' free speech rights; I guess you'll just have to live with it.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Clyburn supports the First Amendment. Sharpton is a fringe character upon whom most liberals look with skepticism.

            1. lady_love158 profile image59
              lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Really? It doesn't sound that way to me! Ah but the left has a way of using denial to support their views.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No we have a way of using facts to support our views.

                That's different from making stuff up

                Example - claiming unemployment under FDR was always over 12% even in WWII.

            2. stclairjack profile image79
              stclairjackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              i just wish we could all look upon mr sharpton a lot less! this fellow pops up on my TV more often that the perverbial turd in the punch bowl, is allowed to bloviate unchallenged, looking more and more like a saturday night live version of himself every day,..... and if most liberals look upon him with skepticism,... i sure as hell wish they would denounce and abandon him for the ambulance chasing hack that he is,... but they dont,.... they let him foam on at the mouth like very smelly but usefull attack dog, that they can roll thier eyes at,.... but they know he does their dirty work.

      2. barryrutherford profile image32
        barryrutherfordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Your so called Freedom comes  at too  far high a price

        average of 30,000 Americaans die as a result of firearms every year  tens of thousands more maimed and injured.

        Does not count the pain for family etc...

        A financial cost  calculated at 3 billion dollars a year.

        That is not Freedom that is being beholden to the Arms Industry

        1. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes and what about cars? 46,000 a year die in automobiles, and what about alcohol how many die from drunk drivers? How about Pot? How many die from pot heads driving? How many people a year are stabbed to death? Clubbed with baseball bats? Poisoned with household products or over the counter drugs? How many die in fires? How many items are you willing to outlaw to save lives? Or is the real point of all this to control the people and make resistance more unlikely or difficult?

          1. barryrutherford profile image32
            barryrutherfordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes but stopping  Automobiles would  STOP America removing guns would HELP America...


            Guns have no purpose that to kill another human being

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Removing guns is the last thing we should do. It would only disarm people that own and carry legally for protection. I don't know what police response time is Down Under but the average in the US is 11 minutes. Would you be willing to wait that long for someone to protect you and/or your family?

              When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

          2. Rochelle Frank profile image89
            Rochelle Frankposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ... and tobacco kills more than all of those combined, but it is perfectly legal.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              But with reasonable controls that minimize the loss of "collateral damage".

              1. Rochelle Frank profile image89
                Rochelle Frankposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                and lots of taxes collected. Second-hand smoke, anyone?

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yep, it's a strange arrangement.

      3. profile image0
        Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We regulate automobiles, driving, road conditions, and speed. Drunk driving is illegal. Pot is illegal. Do you think about any of this before you write?

        "How many items are you willing to outlaw to save lives?"
        Well, out of the 7 you listed, we regulate or outlaw 3 of them. By the way, the Department of Transportation has 1 death recorded in the last 2 years as a result of pot.
        Right now, we are 7th in gun related deaths per capita, 11 spots higher than any other industrialized nation. We rank with South Africa, Mexico, Columbia, and Zimbabwae, yet you don't see a problem in the slightest. 68% of all murder committed in the United States is by guns, 12% by knives, and 3.5% by blunt objects. The statistics don't match up to your statement.
        Keeping guns is not the issue. I support the right to keep guns, but not semi-automatic weapons, not buying at gun shows with no check, and profoundly support background checks. Rather than controlling the people, I would rather you get a little educated and less crazy, but you aren't going to do either.

    3. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The "system" had 5 chances to handle this guy. THEY FAILED. How will new laws help this failure?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If the sale of large magazine handguns to anybody but law enforcement agents had been prohibited fewer people probably would have been shot and fewer killed in Tucson.

        An assault on everyone's safety--

        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opini … ef=opinion

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not true. A person could have mutiple weapons. The person could have multiple magazines. The best tactic is to prevent people with mental illness from possesing firearms. In 2007 Congress passed a law that required reporting of a person who presents mental illness to a health care professional. Some states are not doing a very good job at this...apparently.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            C.J.  I strongly support the second amendment, but the facts in this case are clear. The shooter was taken down by bystanders when the gunman was switching mags.

            The Glock had a 30-round clip. Six people were killed and nineteen injured.

            Do the math. Six and nineteen is 25. He had a 30-round clip. How many would have died if he only had a 10-round clip? The argument that passing the law won't affect the availability of extended clips is ridiculous. If you thought the law would have no effect you wouldn't object to it.

            1. profile image60
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "If you thought the law would have no effect you wouldn't object to it."

              WHAT? Are you serious? Doug, if the current laws were being followed, this kid would have never "owned" a firearm. If in fact he owned one. What we know is that he definitely possessed a firearm. I personally believe the Parents, the College and the Police department FAILED society and this mentally ill man.

              In regards to the magazines. NO standard semi automatic pistol comes with magazines this size. These are aftermarket items. Often not made by the Original Manufacturer. In case you didn't know a Magazine is a VERY SIMPLE tool. A piece of sheet metal and a spring. They can very easily be modified.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                C.J. -  What law on the books prohibited this kid from owning a gun? He was old enough, had no felony record, had never been institutionalized for mental problems, or diagnosed as psychotic. There's a lot of psychotic folks out there, and an effort to round them all up would probably deplete the ranks of the Tea Party by half. Quite inadvertently.

                If you are suggesting that there should be no restrictions on WHAT you can buy, but only on WHO can buy, are you endorsing a freeze on buying a weapon until after a background check, and are you endorsing a national list of felons and kooks who can't buy? Because the NRA has generally opposed that.

                Your suggestion that anyone could make a 30-round clip at home is .. doubtful. I know what a magazine is - I have a 9mm S&W. Getting the feed right in a homemade clip would NOT be trivial.

                1. Jim Hunter profile image61
                  Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "I know what a magazine is"

                  Then why do you keep referring to it as a clip?

                2. profile image60
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  This guy made his condition obvious prior to this incident Doug. You and I both know that. When Police are involved regarding a 'physc' condiditon they are supposed to haul them in for evaluation. Most states have a prescribed holding time for evaluation. Had this been done, we would not be having this discussion. Of course the guy also had drug related issues with Law enforcement. He should have been denied based on that as well. However, we still don't know IF he "OWNED" a firearm. Where did you get the info that it was a Glock?

                  In regards to the magazine...two words...GOOGLE IT! I wont get into details because that would be irresponsible. It's NOT hard Doug. I've read enough from you to know, you could figure this out in a weekend.

                  I don't care WHO refuses to "go along". I could care less what the NRA says. Although, I believe they should be free to say it. It's their lobby along with everyone else's that I have a problem with. Greater wealth shouldn't equal greater representation. Lobyist are defined by the former statement.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "However, we still don't know IF he "OWNED" a firearm. Where did you get the info that it was a Glock?"

                    Loughner used a Glock with two extended 31 shot magazines.

                    Mr. Loughner was carrying two extended magazines that held 31 rounds each, as well as two "regular" magazines that were not high-capacity, when he opened fire with a semiautomatic pistol on a crowd outside a Tucson supermarket on Saturday, said Deputy Erin Gibson, a spokeswoman for the Pima County Sheriff's office. She added that deputies later recovered 31 shell casings.

                    It was only when he stopped to reload that bystanders were able to tackle him.

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11guns.html?hp

                3. profile image60
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  By the way, I NEVER said "MAKE A HOMEMADE CLIP" I said: MODIFY an existing clip.

    4. tony0724 profile image59
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Japan has the strictest gun laws on the planet. And the Yakuza still manages to get guns. All this will do is make the criminally minded go to the black market. A place rational law abiding people would never consider.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How does the per capita rate of gun-related deaths in Japan compare to that of the U.S. ?

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Drastically lower. Laws are different. Let's compare the US to other Countries who are "clinging" to their guns please.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You'll have to name one first.

            1. profile image0
              Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Right now, we are 7th in gun related deaths per capita, ranking among Mexico, South Africa, Zimbabwae, and Costa Rica.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting.  I wonder where their guns are manufactured.

                1. Misha profile image76
                  Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  In China tongue

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure many are.  Mexican drug lords are not however sending buyers to China to purchase assault rifles.  That would be Arizona and it's near daily gun shows.

    5. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree there should be tighter restrictions.
      However, what does that say about people like the Fort Hood shooter?   He was a military man, for Heaven's sake! And yet no one analyzed him enough to show him to be a threat to society.   Does that mean we should take the heavy artillery away from our military people?! That would be ridiculous.

      So, no real solution seems to be available.   And if we dis-arm the average population, that only leaves the military, the police, and the criminals with guns.   And as shown above, we can't always trust each person in the military, nor the police force, and of course not the criminal element.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There is no perfect solution available. There is plenty of room for improvement without impinging on anyone's Second Amendment rights. But the gun manufacturers, dealers and their mouthpiece the NRA wields a lot of influence.

  2. Aficionada profile image95
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    From Yahoo!

    "The revelation about the shooter's high-capacity magazines led one longtime Senate gun control advocate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., to announce plans to re-establish a prohibition that lapsed in 2004 on magazines that feed more than 10 rounds at a time."

    Maybe this restriction would be a good solution?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes it would. Current gun control laws are ineffective. They need to be tightened up considerably. Limiting the sale of large magazine handguns would be a significant improvement.

      1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image79
        Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Or would it make criminals better shots? LOL

  3. Wayne Orvisburg profile image79
    Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago

    All passing a law does is limit people that try to obey the laws.

    There will always be high capacity magazines, assault rifles, fully-automatic weapons, etc. available on the black market. Someone that truly intends to commit a heinous crime will then just find it wherever they can.

    The restriction of firearms is nothing more than dog and pony show for politicians that ends up punishing law abiding citizens.

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Look at how well the laws prohibiting drugs have worked! people in maximum security prisons are still able to get high! Yeah I'm sure the government can be effective at limiting freedom! LOL

      1. profile image0
        Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cute, but liberals weren't the ones who enacted laws on things like pot, nor were liberals the ones who declared the war on drugs. That is you and your ilk.

        1. Wayne Orvisburg profile image79
          Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't declare a war on drugs. That's another example of how it limited freedom and made the situation worse. So I hope "you and your ilk" was not directed at me because at no point in time did I even say "liberal".

          1. profile image0
            Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry man, was directing it at Ladylove

  4. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    ROFLMAO Exactly what I was pointing out here: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/64229?p … ost1417203

    And I swear I did not see this thread when I posted that big_smile

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    "Red Flags at a College, but Tied Hands"


    "The chances are 99% that Loughner was schizophrenic."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11 … amp;st=nyt

  6. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Here we go again, same old NRA nutjob reactions to the carnage their they enable.

    Guns don't kill people peoples kill people.

    He could have killed all them people wif a swiss army knife.

    There are countries wif gun cuntrol laws wheres people still git shot.

    Their opinions are as reprehensible as they are indefensible.  If you are against reasonable gun control laws, you are complicit in these mass murders that are the inevitable result of your twisted logic.

    Congratulations, you just added 6 scalps to your belt.

  7. Aficionada profile image95
    Aficionadaposted 6 years ago

    I heard long ago that laws are most effective in helping to curb the people in the middle - the ones who may be tempted towards certain behaviors, but who have neither the strong self-control (or perhaps values) of the "law-abiding" nor the determination to succeed (or perhaps desperation) of the "law-breakers."

    When we face situations like this tragedy, we have the opportunity to review many different aspects of our society, including laws and including our ability and willingness to report potential problems (and laws relating to how that should be done). 

    I don't think it's particularly helpful to take any potential solution off the table until it has been thoroughly examined, along with other potential solutions.  That's just as much a knee-jerk reaction as it is to say that gun control must be the solution.

    [PS - This post was not directed towards any other specific post.  In case you were wondering.]

  8. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    Congratulations! When you can't make cogent arguments simply make fun of others!

  9. Wayne Orvisburg profile image79
    Wayne Orvisburgposted 6 years ago

    Maybe, we should take Chris Rock's approach.

    Ammunition manufactureres should sell bullets for $30 or $40 EACH. That way, there's no more innocent bystanders.

  10. Jim Hunter profile image61
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    Using the deaths of innocents to further the leftist cause.

    Never let a good crisis (or mass shooting) go to waste.

    Sick.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Using the deaths of innocents to further the leftist cause."

      No, to further the public interest.

      1. lady_love158 profile image59
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes of course.... so explain to me how the spreading of lies by the left is in the "public's interest"?

        1. profile image0
          Texasbetaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I have responded to about 30 of your posts in 2 days, discrediting your lies and misinformation at every step, and you haven't responded once. How about you look in the mirror?

  11. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    A positive development from Fox:

    Ailes Tells Fox Anchors to ‘Tone it Down’
    By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

    Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, on Monday embraced the idea of a more civil public discourse in the wake of the shootings in Arizona.

    In an interview with the hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, which was posted on his Web site, Mr. Ailes said that his network would try to cool the heated rhetoric.

    “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually,” Mr. Ailes said. “You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.”

    Fox News is often accused by critics of crossing the line with hosts like Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

    But Mr. Ailes accused liberals of using the same overheated rhetoric, and he defended Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, for a map that depicted cross hairs over the district of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was one of the 20 people shot on Saturday.

    “We looked at the Internet and the first thing we found in 2007, the Democrat Party had a targeted map with targets on it for the Palin district,” Mr. Ailes said. “These maps have been used for for years that I know of. I have two pictures of myself with a bull’s-eye on my head.”

    He added, “Both sides are wrong, but they both do it.”

  12. profile image60
    CAL SAFETYposted 6 years ago

    If anyone needs a CPR First Aid class in Northern California come to our website @ http://cpr911.org

  13. LeeWalls profile image59
    LeeWallsposted 6 years ago

    I think people need to get along with each other. All should pause and think what a difference it would make.

  14. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Palin calls criticism "blood libel."

    Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, on Wednesday issued a forceful denunciation of her critics in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of “blood libel” in what she called their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.

    “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

    Ms. Palin’s use last year of a map with crosshairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, has become a symbol of that overheated rhetoric. In an interview with The Caucus on Monday, Tim Pawlenty, a potential 2012 rival and the former Republican governor of Minnesota, said he would not have produced such a map.

    But in the video, Ms. Palin rejected criticism of the map, casting it as a broader indictment of the basic political rights of free speech exercised by people of all political persuasions.

    She said that acts like the shootings in Arizona “begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state.”

    “Not with those who listen to talk radio,” said Ms. Palin, who is also a Fox News contributor. “Not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle. Not with law abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their first amendment rights at campaign rallies. Not with those who proudly voted in the last election.”

    In her seven-and-a-half minute video, Ms. Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

    Blood libel is typically used to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term, which is centuries old, referred to anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews, and her use of the phrase itself has caused the video to go viral, attracting criticism of her description of the controversy. Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.

    Posing in front of a fireplace and an American flag, Ms. Palin looked directly at the camera as she condemned the shooting and talked about the “irresponsible statements” made since it happened.

    On a day that President Obama is scheduled to travel to Arizona to give a speech honoring the victims, Ms. Palin posted the video early, getting a jump on the discussion.

    “President Obama and I may not agree on everything,” she said, “but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process.”

    Ms. Palin quoted former President Ronald Reagan as saying that society should not be blamed for the acts of an individual. She said, “it is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

    In the past several days, pundits have wondered aloud why Ms. Palin had not been more vocal amid the criticism coming her way.

    In the video, Ms. Palin, who is mentioned as a possible presidential contender for 2012,  made clear that she had been watching and reading that criticism. Again and again, she returned to the idea that such commentary was unfairly tarring the people who engaged in political debates last year.

    “When we say take up our arms, we are talking about our vote,” she said. “Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully.”

    And she made clear that neither she, nor the advocates for policies that she supports, would be deterred from the rhetoric they have used by the tragedy in Arizona.

    “We will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults,” she said.

    Ms. Palin was not the only one to respond to criticism Wednesday. Sharron Angle, the Tea Party-backed Republican who lost her Senate race against Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, also issued a statement defending herself against criticism.

    “Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people’s Constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant,” she said in the statement, according to media reports. “The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger.”

    Ms. Angle said during the campaign that voters could pursue “Second Amendment remedies” if the political process doesn’t work for them. In the wake of the shooting, those remarks have been criticized anew.

    But Ms. Angle said in her statement Wednesday that: “Finger-pointing towards political figures is an audience-rating game and contradicts the facts as they are known – that the shooter was obsessed with his twisted plans long before the Tea Party movement began.”

    Ms. Palin’s professionally produced video is sure to intensify speculation that Ms. Palin is planning to run for president in 2012.

    By taking on her critics directly, using language designed to grab headlines, Ms. Palin is likely to steal attention away from her potential presidential rivals, most of whom have issued more cautious statements.

    Cautious is not part of Ms. Palin’s political repertoire. She starts the video with the standard expressions of condolences to the victims of the shootings. But her demeanor quickly shifts into a more aggressive posture.

    The video is laden with references that will appeal to her potential supporters. She talks about the country’s “foundational freedoms” and the intentions of the nation’s founders. She makes references to former President Ronald Reagan.

    And twice, she calls the United States “exceptional,” a dig at Mr. Obama, who conservatives accuse of not believing in the concept of “American exceptionalism” because of his answer to a reporter’s question early in his presidency.

    “Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength,” she says. “It is part of why America is exceptional.”

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011 … -libel/?hp

    1. LeeWalls profile image59
      LeeWallsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Are you getting paid for all of that research? Because if you're not why aren't you? Do you realize how much you're writing?

  15. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Room for Debate--more guns, less crime?


    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 … ef=opinion

  16. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Boehner says NO to more gun controls.

    Looks like the most sensible thing to do in the wake of Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting won’t happen: House Speaker John Boehner opposes a new gun-control proposal by Rep. Pete King (R-NY) that would make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal office. Majority Leader Eric Cantor is reserving judgment until King’s bill is finalized, but gun-control advocates aren’t holding out much hope about the legislation being passed with the House’s new GOP majority. “Anything you can get through the gun lobby is going to have little consequence,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). “I don’t see the likelihood of much progress—I don’t see much hope.”
    Read it at The Hill



    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-shee … 9MB8XP-iAK

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Here in Tennessee, guns are banned from local, state,and federal buildings even for legal handgun carry permit holders. The federal ban is nation wide to the best of my knowledge. Only people carrying illegally would carry into one. An additional ban of 1,000 feet around a federal building is over reaching and wouldn't stop someone bent on violence.

      Seems like yet another knee jerk reaction to a very sad tragedy.

      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That should read local, state,and federal "government" buildings.

  17. Edoka Writes profile image60
    Edoka Writesposted 6 years ago

    I challenge the 'mentally ill' defense that seems prevalent in certain cases. I never hear 'mentally ill' in the media when a guy from an inner-city has gone on a killing spree or has trouble with his life, due to poverty; leaving him eating cereal for breakfast, lunch and dinner as a child; or attending a school where discipline overshadows academics, which prevents him from developing knowledge that should be easily attainable.
    Something is inconsistent. And, if it is mentioned or speculated, that's a rarity.

  18. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    There is little to no doubt that Jarod Loughner has mental issues. He was kicked out of community college until he could bring proof from a mental health practitioner that he has been seen and cleared.
    Mr. Loughner's actions may well be the result of drug use, which, for whatever reason, has been underreported. Arizona happens to be a methamphetamine mecca. The paranoid, irrational thoughts of Mr. Loughner are consistent with meth use.

    Edoka, you raise a good point,tho. It seems we are always looking for the causation of a killer's actions. What made him "snap"?

  19. 2besure profile image83
    2besureposted 6 years ago

    You can not remove guns because of one unbalanced person.  I do agree restrictions 30 round clips should be banned.  No one needs a gun like that, unless there is an epidemic of zombies in the neighborhood. LOL!

    I am planning to buy a gun for the first time in my life.  I will take classes to be a responsible gun user.  You never know when you need one.

  20. RTalloni profile image87
    RTalloniposted 6 years ago

    Re the issue of guns, I am often amazed at the lack of thinking that goes into an examination of whether there is problem with them.  For instance, comments about how many people have been attacked and killed, the suffering of the victim’s families, etc. are most often one sided. 

    Without an examination of how many people’s lives have been saved because they had their own gun, or how many homes were not robbed because the home owner was a responsible gun owner, the discussion is unbalanced.  An unbalanced discussion is never profitable.

    Because of the word “civility,” I wrote a hub on the Tucson shootings, however, the problem wasn’t with the word civility, and the problem that day was not the gun.  We don’t outlaw streets because on a consistent basis people get run over and killed while walking in them.  Don’t let a 2-year-old go near a street alone, he might wander into traffic.  A 30-year-old, however, is responsible for his actions if he gets run over.  The street is not the problem.

 
working