Jump to content

The political discussion about the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords


Disclaimer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey, I don't think anyone would call me a liberal, and I'm quite pro-2nd amendment.

That said, reading through this thread, and the obvious is screaming at me.

This is the rhetoric that us commie liberals have been complaining about for the last two years. Hell, Palin's slogan was "Don't retreat! Instead, reload." Back in May when Palin put her "target" up on Twitter, us socialists were saying "wtf." Even Republicans were criticizing her for her rhetoric.

That's not to say that she is in any way responsible, but don't be surprised when eyebrows are raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows if it's really politically motivated... but

Sarah Palin's PAC Puts Gun Sights On Democrats She's Targeting In 2010

Interesting coincidence eh?

Yes it is a coincidence and nothing more.

Unless you don't like Palin: at which point stringing together half-truths, opinions, and unrelated facts to somehow implicate an individual who is in no way responsible for the actions of a crazed man makes it a

CONSPIRACY

Palin probably gave the gun to the guy if she wasn't there pulling the trigger herself. And Glenn Beck played the fiddle whilst this all occurred.

There's also a UFO in Area 51, Kennedy was killed by Castro/The Mob/Aliens, and 9/11 was a plan put in place by Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you don't like Palin and believe she is not tied to this retard in any capacity?

I don't believe that Palin is tied to any of this in any way.

But it's foolish not to examine the culture, and wonder if the overall rhetoric and climate that has been building has had an impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Unnoted by Giffords then, or Krugman now, is the routine use of similar language and imagery by both parties in a culture obsessed with "battleground" states. Indeed, a nearly identical map, included in a Democratic Leadership Committee publication in 2004, featured nine bullseyes over regions where Republican candidates were considered vulnerable that year, and was accompanied by a caption reading: TARGETING STRATEGY. A smaller caption, beneath the bullseyes, read: BEHIND ENEMY LINES. The map illustrated an article on campaign strategy by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute."

These are just words regardless of who uses them. Only a nut job would assume that means it is OK to kill someone. That is why I posted the most offensive thing I could think of. Glad to see that while some took offense, no one suggested my speech be shut down. Congratulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it had something to do with it. Every drop creates a ripple' date=' but what can you do about it? If we slap Palin's hands for her free speech.. who's next? She never advocated for the death/shooting of any of those 'targets'. It was a play-on-words, that's all. The worst thing we could do is completely undermine creative speak and 'salesmanship' over some lunatic. Well.. maybe not the worst thing, but it would be pointless.[/quote']

No one is suggesting, as far as I know, curtailing anyone's free speech.

It surely was a play on words, but one which even some conservative Republicans found to be in bad taste.

Indeed, a nearly identical map, included in a Democratic Leadership Committee publication in 2004, featured nine bullseyes over regions where Republican candidates were considered vulnerable that year, and was accompanied by a caption reading: TARGETING STRATEGY.

The image is here:

http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif

Gotta love FoxNews.

It wasn't "nearly identical," and it wasn't a place where candidates were vulnerable (though, that right there is enough to see a difference). It was states where Bush lost by a small margin. The idea was to focus on those states. Note that: states.

It's a far cry from candidates with red scope targets on their names, isn't it?

But ultimately, you're right.

Crazy is crazy. I think that the right wing rhetoric played a part, but not for his insanity. That guy was going to kill people no matter what.

But when you've got people like Glenn Beck convincing his followers that we're half a day away from losing our nation to China, you've got to wonder what sort of impact that has.

Edited by cg2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! Thanks for not reading the thread and then contributing nothing. :cheers:

If you don't like being disagreed with, then keep your political thoughts to yourself.

News flash sparky, not everyone is exactly like you and not everyone agrees with you. If you don't like that, then maybe this whole posting into the public arena isn't for you.

I'll remember this though, and stop using reason and facts when I respond to you. My fault thinking you could handle a mature conversation that involves reason, logic and intelligence.

Edited by dorifto240
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO if you get the 33rd mag, but only load to 31, you are ok?

It is kinda like another Ohio law that classifies a load mag,seperate from a pistol, as a loaded weapon while in your vehicle.

No. Doesn't matter how many is in the mag, it considers what the mag itself is capable of holding while it's inserted into the firearm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Doesn't matter how many is in the mag, it considers what the mag itself is capable of holding while it's inserted into the firearm.

Thanks Chevy and IP.

Bet there will still be a run on Glock owners buying the 33rd mags since it has been in the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the kid holding the camera taking a picture of a beer in his hand like a big boy is illiterate.

Don't care if you disagree, that was never the point - keep looking though, if you READ the thread before commenting you just might be able to make one. Or are you that unwelcome guy at the bar that butts into a conversations having listened to nothing prior because you feel it's your God given right to blast everyone with your enlightened thoughts on things that were already discussed?

Add something instead of being just an echo chamber... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't like being disagreed with, then keep your political thoughts to yourself.

News flash sparky, not everyone is exactly like you and not everyone agrees with you. If you don't like that, then maybe this whole posting into the public arena isn't for you.

I'll remember this though, and stop using reason and facts when I respond to you. My fault thinking you could handle a mature conversation that involves reason, logic and intelligence.

Hint: Your response to post #1 was post #95 in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. It's illegal if they are in the weapon.. loaded or not. FTR' date=' I also believe that the chamber counts, so a 30 round mag is the max size you can use.

I could be wrong..[/quote']

That sounds right from what I've read. Any magazine capable of holding more than 30 or 31 rounds is illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illegal if it's in the weapon' date=' right? :dunno:[/quote']

Now that I think about it more I'm not sure how they would draw the line. I'm betting if it's obvious it belongs to a weapon in your possession loaded or not they might find a way to charge you. Good question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illegal if it's in the weapon' date=' right? :dunno:[/quote']

Here's my take: they say I can have an auto trigger group as long as I don't have a firearm that it fits. If I have both, they consider it intent to assemble an automatic weapon. Ohio defines something capable of firing 32rds without reloading as an automatic weapon. If I have a Glock 17 and a 33rd magazine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the kid holding the camera taking a picture of a beer in his hand like a big boy is illiterate.

Don't care if you disagree, that was never the point - keep looking though, if you READ the thread before commenting you just might be able to make one. Or are you that unwelcome guy at the bar that butts into a conversations having listened to nothing prior because you feel it's your God given right to blast everyone with your enlightened thoughts on things that were already discussed?

Add something instead of being just an echo chamber... :rolleyes:

This coming from a squidbilly, and I can read just fine thank you.

Should I have quoted the marxist claims to make you happy? Or would you have liked a reference to the Obama/Facebook mention. Or the smiley/frowny face suggestions. Or how about where you freaked out about "facts."

Again, you don't like being disagreed with or proven wrong.

Do grow up.

Edited by dorifto240
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My XD had a sticker that said' date=' "Law Enforcement Only". :dunno: I tell myself lies so that I may use "plausible deniability" in a court case, if necessary.[/quote']

My LE6920 is engraved "Law Enforcement Only." I was told that hasn't meant anything since 2004.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...