Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[Ulysses31]

you cant carry a fuckin knife there? jesus christ that sucks. i carry one every day as a tool just in case i need it. i wouldnt be a very happy boy in the UK. thats some BS right there

Like I said above the majority our our citizens don't want to carry guns or knives as we see that as something criminals would possess so tighter knive/gun laws are welcomed here so we don't get mad at these types of laws. Your constitution gives you the 'right to bear arms' which is why lots of americans get upset when the govt tries to minimalise this, two different systems in two different countries with different constitutions so they are not really comparable.

Our knife law
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q337.htm

its sucks because if those citizens that were attacked by knives would have been armed then those criminals would have been the typical example of "you don't bring a knife to a gunfight"

To be honest most of the victims were in a gang (so we couldn't care less) or were minors killed by other minors meaning they couldn't have carried knives/guns even if they were legal. Very few people in this country get attacked with knives and/or guns by strangers in this country so it's not enough to warrant the legalisation of these weapons for citizens personal protection.

 

[Peashooter]

No. Here's one of the breakdowns...A school banned this guy from their campus because they thought the was too dangerous. How is something as common sense like that not funneled to NICS? If you like how dumb that is...just think of how great the idea is of AZ now considering allowing firearms to be brought onto college campuses while not having a mechanism for reporting the crazies they're trying to keep off of them.


Isn't that with everything though? Analogy: No one's talking about shutting down bars because people drink and drive. But one reasonable thing you can do to combat it is a common sense ban on open containers of alcohol in the car.

Are there nutters who want to ban alcohol outright as a means of combating drinking and driving? Yeah...but if you're a person who sees something as common sense as banning open containers of alcohol in a car as a threat to the right....you're just as big a nutter IMO.

I'm getting ready to leave but I was scrolling through this quickly and read your statement and I had to reply. You say there should be a ban on carrying open containers in cars. I agree, and there is here in Kentucky. I'm not sure about everywhere else, but you can't have an open container in a car, yet there are drunk driving incidents ALL THE TIME. There was even a judge caught driving under the influence by a State Trooper in Bourbon Co. a couple years ago. Everyone knows someone who has or does drink and drive. I know several myself that have driven while drunk, and one friend of mine died because of it. I tell them not to and I call the police if they do it anyway, but it doesn't stop them and they never get pulled over. I knew a couple of people that have overdosed and died from drugs, which are also illegal by the way, but surprisingly enough I don't know of anyone that has ever shot someone (other than my police officer or military friends) and I don't know anyone that has ever been shot or shot at. Your statement about open containers is the same as saying "You should be able to own a gun, just don't use it illegally." There will always be criminals committing crimes, that will never change, but a select few individuals' actions should not be able to restrict what the other 99% of law abiding citizens can buy or own. Some people would love to look at me and tell me I have no business owning a gun because I MAY use it illegally. Does that mean I can tell them they shouldn't be allowed to own kitchen knives because they could stab someone? A lighter or gasoline because they may burn someone's house down while kids are inside?

I grew up in a mostly redneck county where everyone owns a gun, I've been shooting some kind of gun or another since I was 5 or 6, I own several today and I shoot all the time. Sometimes competitively, sometimes for hunting, and sometimes just for practice or fun. Guns or high capacity magazines aren't to blame, it was the guy who pulled the trigger.

I have my Concealed Carry Deadly Weapons permit and I do keep a handgun in my car in case someone feels the need to carjack me while I have my kids in the car. If I see someone shooting at a group of people, I'm not going to stop my car, get out, and start shooting. Too many liabilities because you don't know the entire situation. It could be an undercover police officer that's firing at gang members who drew weapons. I would only ever use mine if they were attacking ME or MY FAMILY.

 

[1ManRevolution]

That dude is batshit crazy and so is saying shit like, "don't retreat, RELOAD!", talking about "second-amendment remedies", and putting out maps of congressional districts with cross-hairs targeting political opponents.

Yeah...cause Politicans NEVER say things like "battleground States" or "target" certian districts...etc.

The dude also has read some extream books as well...The current political culture did not set this in motion...it was brewing for quite some time in this nut case.

 

[D-rock]

No right based on the US Constitution is absolute. There are many cases where our rights are limited based on exigent circumstances...

We have the right to free speech but not the right to yell fire in a crowded theater or bomb on a plane for example.

Everyone in the US doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms. There are circumstances that can forfeit that right...just like the right to vote for example.

Our biggest problem is the paranoid ninnies who can't even come to grips with enhancing NICS.

We have far too many people with clear evidence of mental disorder still being able to purchase firearms.

I have argued this being the biggest loophole right now...whether it be the kid who killed a bunch of people at Va. Tech...the guy who killed the coach in Iowa, this guy, etc., etc., etc., etc....a whole lot could be accomplished by enhancing NICS with inclusions of any mental health incidents.

But nooo...too many paranoids see ANY reasonable restriction as a 'creep' but they don't realize how much they hurt the cause with their unreasonable incorrigibility.



^^See

There are some major flaws in your thinking.

The first one is that if you really did that with the NICS all you would do is encourage people that need help to not get it. If somebody is stable but has a minor mental problem (or even a major one) I want them to feel like they can go get help for it without somebody putting them in a database so they get flagged. Punishing people for that is going to do nothing but keep people from getting the help they needed as what happens when there is a negative repercussion attached to it.

The second part I have a problem with is that for something that is a constitutional and human right you should have damn good evidence and you should have to convict or find somebody mentally incompetent beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, at a bare minimum. Remember we are a country where we are presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Just limiting people's right because somebody doesn't like what they said or they have suspicions about somebody doesn't cut it. Not only that but it will just lead someday after things are eroded of people having to go through trouble clearing themselves after they look wrong at somebody, get into a little spat with their neighbor after they yell at them, or just because somebody doesn't like you and wants to spite you by reporting something false about you. As far as I know people that have been judged mentally incompetent by the courts can't own guns now so it isn't like there is a lack of law already.




While no right under the constitution is absolute I feel any restrictions of it have to be in the absolute most limited and constrained way possible and that's only when there is no other choice, the repercussions of not doing so are greater than the ones for doing it, and to keep others from infringing on others rights like yelling fire in a theater.

In any case while gun laws at the federal level (the state level has tons of them) might not be numerous both of them have dramatic effects, and quite frankly have gone way too far already. How about this? How many of you would think it's alright if to needed a state issued license to free speech? How many of you would be think it's alright if you were merely technically allowed free speech but you had to tell the government exactly when you were doing it, what was being said, who you were saying it to, how many people you were saying it to, who you transferred speech material to, how you were doing it, when it was being done, and it all had to be recorded in a database for the handy use of the government if they someday wanted to use that information and then sometimes that would be after you were fingerprinted and had other physically identifying information taken from you and oh by the way you have to pay for it? How many people would think it's alright to be able to write a book, but have the book be disallowed for what amounts to the cosmetic way the book looks? How many people would be alright if they had the right to free speech but it was limited to the most strictest to uses and times that made it more often than not useless when it was critical to have the ability to do so and you had to get the governments permission even for that? How many people would be alright with being able to have books but having to keep them in a safe where it was purposely made impossible to get to it quickly if you needed to use it just so if somebody who happens to not even be allowed there happens to steal it (Or really so if the police break down your door you can't get to it before they get in.). How about if you were allowed free speech but the red tape you had to go through for all but the most hardcore free speech people made them unwilling to go through the hassle more than a few times in their life. How about if certain people with connections to the local law enforcement were allowed to have free speech for no other reasons than their connections to them while you weren't..and ect and ect... I could go on and on. That pretty much is what anti-gun laws have already gotten to in either part or most of the above depending on where you live. This isn't common sense stuff like some like to say. I have no problem with real common sense limitations (and most of the time when lawmakers scream common sense it isn‘t the case), but it's moved way beyond that.

More than any other right we have this is the one that has to be protected the most from any erosion. It's what protects the others. It is THE most important one we have for without it the others are meaningless. The entirety of world history since it's been recorded has featured governments that have moved towards tyranny over time with pretty much no exceptions. There is nothing short of all of human history backing that up with nothing showing the opposite. The right we have to be armed has two important functions, and one of them isn't for sport. One is for direct self protection and the other is as a check against future tyranny of the government because without the threat of violence and repercussions of their own people every government will someday arrive at that point (and they still might anyhow). Anything that will keep that right from being practiced can't exist. If that means every so often people have to die because there will be nut cases out there that somehow get their hands on weapons because of the freedom we have that freedom, SO BE IT because the consequences of the absence of that freedom are going to be much much worse. That's the price of freedom and always has been. Just like we don't disallow hate speech even though it leads to bad things. If something like this happened next week and the week after that and the week after that it still wouldn't change it. Unfortunately, the means to be able to fight off our own army requires things like semi-auto rifles and pistols, and that they can be reasonably and easily gotten by citizens that abide by decent laws and that the government cant' just track them when they want. For protection we need to have the right to have arms with us when the need arises. I wish we live in a world where that might not be the case but we don't.

 

[Hot Mega]

I'm getting ready to leave but I was scrolling through this quickly and read your statement and I had to reply. You say there should be a ban on carrying open containers in cars. I agree, and there is here in Kentucky. I'm not sure about everywhere else, but you can't have an open container in a car, yet there are drunk driving incidents ALL THE TIME. There was even a judge caught driving under the influence by a State Trooper in Bourbon Co. a couple years ago. Everyone knows someone who has or does drink and drive. I know several myself that have driven while drunk, and one friend of mine died because of it. I tell them not to and I call the police if they do it anyway, but it doesn't stop them and they never get pulled over. I knew a couple of people that have overdosed and died from drugs, which are also illegal by the way, but surprisingly enough I don't know of anyone that has ever shot someone (other than my police officer or military friends) and I don't know anyone that has ever been shot or shot at. Your statement about open containers is the same as saying "You should be able to own a gun, just don't use it illegally." There will always be criminals committing crimes, that will never change, but a select few individuals' actions should not be able to restrict what the other 99% of law abiding citizens can buy or own. Some people would love to look at me and tell me I have no business owning a gun because I MAY use it illegally. Does that mean I can tell them they shouldn't be allowed to own kitchen knives because they could stab someone? A lighter or gasoline because they may burn someone's house down while kids are inside?

I grew up in a mostly redneck county where everyone owns a gun, I've been shooting some kind of gun or another since I was 5 or 6, I own several today and I shoot all the time. Sometimes competitively, sometimes for hunting, and sometimes just for practice or fun. Guns or high capacity magazines aren't to blame, it was the guy who pulled the trigger.

I have my Concealed Carry Deadly Weapons permit and I do keep a handgun in my car in case someone feels the need to carjack me while I have my kids in the car. If I see someone shooting at a group of people, I'm not going to stop my car, get out, and start shooting. Too many liabilities because you don't know the entire situation. It could be an undercover police officer that's firing at gang members who drew weapons. I would only ever use mine if they were attacking ME or MY FAMILY.

This is the problem as I outlined before....^^^

AS SOON AS someone brings up common sense....here comes a kneejerk reaction that doesn't even near miss the point.

We don't live in a perfect world and I assume that much we can agree on. In an imperfect world where people have clear record of mental health or otherwise record of menacing behavior...we can and should be including that in NICS reports...whatever it takes. That's not sensible to you??

That is as common sense as keeping open containers of alcohol out of the cars while people are driving. Will those measures solve the problems?? No. They're not intended to...they are merely additional common sense measures to help in an imperfect world.

There are some major flaws in your thinking.

The first one is that if you really did that with the NICS all you would do is encourage people that need help to not get it. If somebody is stable but has a minor mental problem (or even a major one) I want them to feel like they can go get help for it without somebody putting them in a database so they get flagged. Punishing people for that is going to do nothing but keep people from getting the help they needed as what happens when there is a negative repercussion attached to it.

The second part I have a problem with is that for something that is a constitutional and human right you should have damn good evidence and you should have to convict or find somebody mentally incompetent beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, at a bare minimum. Remember we are a country where we are presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Just limiting people's right because somebody doesn't like what they said or they have suspicions about somebody doesn't cut it. Not only that but it will just lead someday after things are eroded of people having to go through trouble clearing themselves after they look wrong at somebody, get into a little spat with their neighbor after they yell at them, or just because somebody doesn't like you and wants to spite you by reporting something false about you. As far as I know people that have been judged mentally incompetent by the courts can't own guns now so it isn't like there is a lack of law already.




While no right under the constitution is absolute I feel any restrictions of it have to be in the absolute most limited and constrained way possible and that's only when there is no other choice, the repercussions of not doing so are greater than the ones for doing it, and to keep others from infringing on others rights like yelling fire in a theater.

In any case while gun laws at the federal level (the state level has tons of them) might not be numerous both of them have dramatic effects, and quite frankly have gone way too far already. How about this? How many of you would think it's alright if to needed a state issued license to free speech? How many of you would be think it's alright if you were merely technically allowed free speech but you had to tell the government exactly when you were doing it, what was being said, who you were saying it to, how many people you were saying it to, who you transferred speech material to, how you were doing it, when it was being done, and it all had to be recorded in a database for the handy use of the government if they someday wanted to use that information and then sometimes that would be after you were fingerprinted and had other physically identifying information taken from you and oh by the way you have to pay for it? How many people would think it's alright to be able to write a book, but have the book be disallowed for what amounts to the cosmetic way the book looks? How many people would be alright if they had the right to free speech but it was limited to the most strictest to uses and times that made it more often than not useless when it was critical to have the ability to do so and you had to get the governments permission even for that? How many people would be alright with being able to have books but having to keep them in a safe where it was purposely made impossible to get to it quickly if you needed to use it just so if somebody who happens to not even be allowed there happens to steal it (Or really so if the police break down your door you can't get to it before they get in.). How about if you were allowed free speech but the red tape you had to go through for all but the most hardcore free speech people made them unwilling to go through the hassle more than a few times in their life. How about if certain people with connections to the local law enforcement were allowed to have free speech for no other reasons than their connections to them while you weren't..and ect and ect... I could go on and on. That pretty much is what anti-gun laws have already gotten to in either part or most of the above depending on where you live. This isn't common sense stuff like some like to say. I have no problem with real common sense limitations (and most of the time when lawmakers scream common sense it isn‘t the case), but it's moved way beyond that.

More than any other right we have this is the one that has to be protected the most from any erosion. It's what protects the others. It is THE most important one we have for without it the others are meaningless. The entirety of world history since it's been recorded has featured governments that have moved towards tyranny over time with pretty much no exceptions. There is nothing short of all of human history backing that up with nothing showing the opposite. The right we have to be armed has two important functions, and one of them isn't for sport. One is for direct self protection and the other is as a check against future tyranny of the government because without the threat of violence and repercussions of their own people every government will someday arrive at that point (and they still might anyhow). Anything that will keep that right from being practiced can't exist. If that means every so often people have to die because there will be nut cases out there that somehow get their hands on weapons because of the freedom we have that freedom, SO BE IT because the consequences of the absence of that freedom are going to be much much worse. That's the price of freedom and always has been. Just like we don't disallow hate speech even though it leads to bad things. If something like this happened next week and the week after that and the week after that it still wouldn't change it. Unfortunately, the means to be able to fight off our own army requires things like semi-auto rifles and pistols, and that they can be reasonably and easily gotten by citizens that abide by decent laws and that the government cant' just track them when they want. For protection we need to have the right to have arms with us when the need arises. I wish we live in a world where that might not be the case but we don't.

Missed the point x2.

But even entertaining your premise, I do place a higher value on having incidents reporting into a system for the purposes of keeping firearms out of the hands of the wrong people than likelihood such a system would preclude truly sick, depressed or distressed people from seeking help.

Even as such in many cases it would be the province of others to do the reporting. Just like with any other situation if it's important to the person they will have their opportunity to present their side.

Besides, if a person is considering seeking professional or otherwise help they're probably the last person I want considering firearms. They have bigger shit to worry about you'd think.

 

[Master Roshi]

medical doctors kill over 200,000 people a year in the US, maybe we should ban them too

 

[Master Roshi]

"I would rather be troubled by the inconveniences of too much liberty than of too little."

 

[pete rose]

 

[1ManRevolution]

I don't understand how if we banned guns in this country that things like this would not happen. Just has no logical support.

Think about it, ex-cons/criminals are banned from getting a gun in this country...yet they are still able to.

 

[Hot Mega]

I don't understand how if we banned guns in this country that things like this would not happen. Just has no logical support.

Think about it, ex-cons/criminals are banned from getting a gun in this country...yet they are still able to.

I haven't read this entire thread but I haven't seen anyone (at least not an American) favor a ban in light of this.

But we should at least be able to stop a person with a record of menacing, unstable behavior from simply walking into their local gun store and legally buying a firearm.

I've argued that for years. Criminals usually kill who they're pissed at or someone impeding their crime....deranged people usually kill as many people as they can who don't have shit to do with them before they kill themselves or sit at some arraignment laughing about it.

We should at least be doing everything reasonable to stop that from happening. How can it be the case that people with clear histories of mental issues be able to walk into some legal place of business and buy firearms???:ban:

 

[CunningStunts]

Rose[/URL][/B], post: 5301639, member: 380567"]

That is a well reasoned, intelligent post.

 

[CunningStunts]

medical doctors kill over 200,000 people a year in the US, maybe we should ban them too

How about automobiles?:dunno:

 

[pete rose]

That is a well reasoned, intelligent post.

I thought I'd lighten the mood.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Everyone needs to lighten the fuck up. Honestly. You people get so wound up about every fucking thing.

Let's review:
A crazy fuck got a gun. He likely shouldn't have qualified for a gun, even under existing laws in that state.

This isn't a gun control issue.

This isn't a Sarah Palin issue.

This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue.

This isn't a reason to jump on any bandwagon.

How about we keep in mind the fact that people died, people were hurt, the Congresswoman's recovery thus far is remarkable, and a damaged man ran into a crowd with a gun.

Everyone take a breath. Better? Now, stop pontificating on the political meaning of this fucking stupid act of violence. Don't spend so much time theorizing about the shooters motivation. Something set him off - it may have been Glenn Beck, President Obama, or perhaps an undigested piece of beef. Do you really believe he would be able to clearly articulate his motivations? He won't. Not until a lawyer coaches him.

This is just senseless violence, and ANYONE who uses it for political gain should be slapped.

 

[xfire]

This is just senseless violence, and ANYONE who uses it for political gain should be slapped.

Sarah Palin needs power-bombed for being a festering puss pocket.

 

[alexpnz]

Everyone needs to lighten the fuck up. Honestly. You people get so wound up about every fucking thing.

Let's review:
A crazy fuck got a gun. He likely shouldn't have qualified for a gun, even under existing laws in that state.

This isn't a gun control issue.

This isn't a Sarah Palin issue.

This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue.

This isn't a reason to jump on any bandwagon.

How about we keep in mind the fact that people died, people were hurt, the Congresswoman's recovery thus far is remarkable, and a damaged man ran into a crowd with a gun.

Everyone take a breath. Better? Now, stop pontificating on the political meaning of this fucking stupid act of violence. Don't spend so much time theorizing about the shooters motivation. Something set him off - it may have been Glenn Beck, President Obama, or perhaps an undigested piece of beef. Do you really believe he would be able to clearly articulate his motivations? He won't. Not until a lawyer coaches him.

This is just senseless violence, and ANYONE who uses it for political gain should be slapped.

You are wrong on the Sarah Palin/Glen Beckowitz point....you see, that little irresponsible piece of "name in crosshairs" propaganda that they distributed is what probably helped set this waste of sperm off. I don't give a fuck what her retarded explanation for it is, bottom line is what if some other mentally disturbed cumdrinker takes it the wrong way and tries to assasinate another name on her list?
You see Dirk....NO ONE is to blame other than those two and they need to be held responsible if their rhetoric causes an insane person to murder!

I have spoken and I am correct....:hatsoff:
Beck and Palin need to be silenced before more murder is committed by their followers!!!

 

[babys2]

All I can believe now that George Soros is behind the killing of Gabrielle and Ashley. Gabrielle wants solar powered energy and she was sponsoring a bill. It got lots some attention.

http://giffords.house.gov/legis/solar-energy.shtml

George Soros doesn't like the idea of solar energy because that would kill his money making scheme energy fossil [21$ billions]. Soros bought shares from duke and progress energy in north carolina. Gabrielle sends letter to Gov Bev Perdue that solar energy is the way to go and it is cheap.

Recently I heard that DUKE is going to merge with Progress Energy in North Carolina.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS324524729020110112


Soros 1
Gabrielle 0

She is not dead yet but soros will make a come back.

 

[lurkingdirk]

You are wrong on the Sarah Palin/Glen Beckowitz point....you see, that little irresponsible piece of "name in crosshairs" propaganda that they distributed is what probably helped set this waste of sperm off. I don't give a fuck what her retarded explanation for it is, bottom line is what if some other mentally disturbed cumdrinker takes it the wrong way and tries to assasinate another name on her list?
You see Dirk....NO ONE is to blame other than those two and they need to be held responsible if their rhetoric causes an insane person to murder!

I have spoken and I am correct....:hatsoff:
Beck and Palin need to be silenced before more murder is committed by their followers!!!

I agree that Beck and Palin need to be silenced, but not for this. They did not enable this guy to buy a gun, walk into the situation with the gun loaded, or ask him to try to assassinate anyone. Did they speak unwisely? Yes. Did they hold a gun to his head and force him to do it? No.

At some point, someone other than the political leaders are responsible for crazy fucks pulling the trigger.

 

[xfire]

Beck, Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the far-right band leaders have continually screamed "socialist", used heated gun-rhetoric, and painted their political opponents as un-American. Like it or not they have created an environment that encourages the growth of human bacteria like Loughner and helped to incite the sort of violence perpetrated in Arizona. Just like when Bill O'Reilly continually referred to Dr. George Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer" which ultimately ended with Tiller's assassination by far-right lunatic Scott Roeder. People like Palin need to take responsibility for their reckless rhetoric and quit trying to shift blame on to people that recognize their vitriol.

 

[alexpnz]

Obama, in his pep rally in Tucson, just announced for the first time, the congresswoman opened her eyes and is aware of what happend to her and of her surroundings!

This is a great speech by Obama....this will be the hallmark speech of his presidency; in the vein of MLK!! :hatsoff:

I hope Sarah Palin is watching because soon, her eyes will be opened to the fact that her political career died w/ those 6 poor people!

Glen Beckberg....you are next!