Whew, what a thread. And to think, I've read all 22 pages of it. There's quite a bit of back and forth, but here are some things I just wanted to throw my two cents in...one is a favorite of 2nd Amendment supporters (which isn't, by the way, to say that I'm not):
According to Ron Paul:
“The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand,” the Texas Republican declared in 2006. “It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. ... The muskets they used against the British army were the assault rifles of that time.”
That's why I voted for him. An unarmed populace, are not citizens, they are subjects.
I like Ron Paul and this argument's a favorite: but I think it's total bologna. Back in the day when oppressive force was an actual threat, sure. Today that simply isn't the case. It isn't practical or effective for the US government to control through authoritarian means. Rather, they'll do it the way they do it anyway: quiet mis-education and subversion of rights. They've been doing it for decades. Has the armed populace even so much as slowed this down? Not a wink.
Does anybody really think that if the US army - assuming every if not most individual soldiers forgot their oath to defend against enemies aboard and
at home - decided to physically 'take over', gun enthusiasts, hunters and other gun sportsmen would be able to stop them? Not a chance.
No, the argument doesn't hold water. It's easier and more effective for the government to control as it does now. It works and people still pay taxes. z9102 had it exactly right:
Guns don't preserve liberty. An ever vigilant public looking out for their civil liberties does.
And over the last 50 years or so they've been doing a rather poor job of it.
Moving on...
Trying to paint this as some kind of random attack is obviously rediculous. The politician in question was singled out, using violent symbolism, by anti-government politicians and media demagogues who constantly reference violent overthrow as a legitimate means and then along comes a nut who embraced those same views.
If that's all just a coincidence then it's a pretty big one.
but that's just it, loughner chose to shoot her (fucked up tho his head may be), no one else...whether or not the rhetoric was out of hand, you can't blame the rhetoric...just like how marilyn manson and rammstein weren't to blame for columbine
For the sake of argument, I'm going to make a difference between 'blame' and 'responsibility'. Blame is where the finger-pointing should go. Responsibility I'm using in the strictest definition of the word: the ability to respond. Only Loughner should be blamed. However, everyone - especially Palin, considering her presence in the public domain - is responsible for the crap they shovel out into the public domain. As emcee said, it would be foolish - irresponsible, in fact - to simply write this off as an isolated crazy person performing an isolated shooting. No doubt Loughner was crazy, but if we simply stop there and don't look at the context and culture around him, we're simply waiting for the next shooting.
That these things happen somewhat frequently should tell us that there's something quite wrong with our culture. How big a part things like Palin's targets and 'reload, don't retreat' (as well as the same sort of stuff from others in the public domain) play in encouraging incidents like these is debatable, but they most certainly play a part. I think it's completely fair to have a look at these things and ask questions, though the more politically motivated these questions are, the more bias and less use they're likely to have.
Or, we could just continue to treat this like a sibling rivalry with this 'oh, they started it', 'they did it worse first', 'they do it to!' BS. Just remember: defending your 'side' by comparing it to actions of the other doesn't excuse your side's actions or even really defend it (I say this because there's a ton of it in this thread). Two wrongs don't make a right, lesser of two evils, etc., etc.
