Rep. Steve Scalise Shot

I think this guy was depressed and looking for Suicide by Cop. However, the constant call to action by the left gives him hope that he can go out in a blaze of glory and be rewarded and martyred by his brothers-in-arms, rather that just another suicide statistic.
 
It will be interesting to see if the media approaches this the same way they approached the Gabrielle Gifford shooting, which was to force a baldly partisan narrative about "violent political rhetoric." I think that's stupid in both situations, but I'm not expecting much consistence.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It will be interesting to see if the media approaches this the same way they approached the Gabrielle Gifford shooting, which was to force a baldly partisan narrative about "violent political rhetoric." I think that's stupid in both situations, but I'm not expecting much consistence.
Click to expand...

I think you may be wrong on that. The time is ripe for a conversation on civility. Of course, expect the narrative to not be focused solely on the Alexandria shooting but will also tie in that Montana Congressman (Gilforte?) and others.

As a Trump-basher, he deserves credit when due. His non-partisan response to the tragedy this morning was commendable. I appreciated the fact that he didn't politicize the tragedy, unlike some of Obama's immediate responses to tragedies in his 2nd term, specifically the calls for gun controls during the immediate aftermath of some events.
 
So elected Dems still urge resisting and incite their followers. Then you have this from Hollywood..15 times celebs envisioned violence against Trump/GOP.

But yeah none of this is a serious issue. They're only radically normalizing resistance 'by any means' to POTUS and the GOP to millions of people.

These aren't nutjob radicals (in their eyes) calling for or normalizing this behavior, these are the very people they admire as leaders in government and entertainment.

Only outcasts and extremists feel comfortable acting like a whackjob if the person urging it is overwhelmingly viewed by the masses as an outcast and threat to society.

When people of mass admiration start preaching these radical, violent things, bad sh*t will continue to happen and multiply. Watch.
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
http://www.newsweek.com/homegrown-terrorism-rising-threat-right-wing-extremism-619724

The left wing has some work to do to catch up to the right wing as far as death, destruction, etc.
Click to expand...

Not exactly my dentally challenged neighbor to the north. The anti-government right doesn't come close to the Democide committed by big government. Bernie Sanders', and many Democrats', shining example of the proper method of governance alone will be difficult to match:

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill

Feel the Bern?
 
DCPElOvXUAAUGtv.jpg
 
From Ann Coulter:

Remember when it was frightening for the losing party not to accept the results of an election? During the third debate, Trump refused to pre-emptively agree to the election results, saying he'd "look at it at the time."

The media responded in their usual laid-back style:

A 'HORRIFYING' REPUDIATION OF DEMOCRACY -- The Washington Post, Oct. 20, 2016

DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY -- Daily News (New York), Oct. 20, 2016 DANGER TO DEMOCRACY -- The Dallas Morning News, Oct. 20, 2016

ONE SCARY MOMENT; IT ALL BOILED DOWN TO ... DEMOCRACY -- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Oct. 21, 2016

"(Shock) spiked down the nation's spinal column last night and today when the Republican nominee threatened that this little election thing you got there, this little democratic process you've got here, it's nice, it's fine, but he doesn't necessarily plan on abiding by its decision when it comes to the presidency." -- Rachel Maddow, Oct. 20, 2016
Click to expand...


http://www.anncoulter.com/

The Left repudiated the election results, urged resistance, ginned up the vitriol for six months and voila, you get radicalized nut jobs gunning down Republicans playing baseball.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
It will be interesting to see if the media approaches this the same way they approached the Gabrielle Gifford shooting, which was to force a baldly partisan narrative about "violent political rhetoric." I think that's stupid in both situations, but I'm not expecting much consistence
Click to expand...

Here is your answer. The NYT is using the Alexandria shooting to blame Sarah Palin for the Gifford shooting. Liberals only care about their own.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/n...-sarah-palin-with-debunked-conspiracy-theory/
 
Guys what we witnessed was a "Second Amendment Solution." Given the freedoms we are guaranteed in this country it was ugly.

Authoritarian regimes are begat from lies and violence. The battle here isn't left vs. right. It's those who believe in our way of life and government and those who want something imposed by violence. If someone starts thinking violence by our side is justified they haven't bought into our system.

If the Democrats had sufficiently inspired left of center voters in 2016 they would control of the White House, Senate and Supreme Court. The answer is in politics, not use of force.
 
Clean said:
Here is your answer. The NYT is using the Alexandria shooting to blame Sarah Palin for the Gifford shooting. Liberals only care about their own.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/n...-sarah-palin-with-debunked-conspiracy-theory/
Click to expand...
To me the most salient paragraph from the story Clean linked
“Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

The first half is either sloppy or intentionally deceitful. The call for decency is something that needs communicating, but given its absence in its own editorial, the New York Times suggestion rings pretty damned hollow.
 
Crockett said:
Guys what we witnessed was a "Second Amendment Solution."
Click to expand...
Even in quotations, that statement is horribly wrong. What we witnessed was a criminal law violation. The second amendment doesn't have anything to do with shooting/murdering innocent people.
 
I'm not the inventor of the phrase "Second Amendment Solution." It was right wingers suggesting what might be appropriate if elected government didn't sufficiently protect their liberties. This is what armed rebellion looks like. Clearly the actions were illegal as would be any insurrection. Fortunately it was implemented by a loner loser who had no ability to inspire others.
 
And they were wrong to utter that phrase just as you are wrong to say it was implemented, but I don't want to advocate violating the First Amendment, so carry on.
 
iatrogenic said:
And they were wrong to utter that phrase
Click to expand...
We agree on that. My point is that this event is an illustration of how wrong it was. If you say the "right to bear arms" protects from government ... well when that "protection" is implemented it won't look like a chase scene from the old Scooby Doo cartoon.
 
Crockett said:
If you say the "right to bear arms" protects from government ... well when that "protection" is implemented it won't look like a chase scene from the old Scooby Doo cartoon.
Click to expand...

I suspect - and I'm not making a stance on the argument one way or the other - that when most NORMAL people say that, they're thinking more about the deterrent factor than a situation where they're actively taking up arms. Now clearly, there are some exceptions to that. But I know that the people I know who make that argument would be the last ones to actually get into a firefight with army troops (not because of fear, but because they just wouldn't do it.)
 
ProdigalHorn said:
I suspect - and I'm not making a stance on the argument one way or the other - that when most NORMAL people say that, they're thinking more about the deterrent factor than a situation where they're actively taking up arms. Now clearly, there are some exceptions to that. But I know that the people I know who make that argument would be the last ones to actually get into a firefight with army troops (not because of fear, but because they just wouldn't do it.)
Click to expand...
Hope so. If it goes down, I'm the only Dem in my neighborhood. My outgrown softball bats and decorative (dull) samari swords that accompany belts in the local tae quon do school won't do me much good.... :)
 
A few comments on this thread:

1. This isn't a left or right problem but rather a civil discourse problem. Both sides have their crazies and violence is never a correct remedy. Both sides have their own vitriol that needs to be quelled. Anyone remember this?
2. "Resist", "Don't Tread on Me" and other slogans to mobilize voters to support political causes are not the reason some crazy person like this takes matters into their own hands.
3. Motivating your base to attend Town Halls and question their representatives is perfectly fine.
4. I'm no fan of the depth of the PC movement but it had one really good benefit, it created social pressure to be civil. The anti-PC movement and it's corollary from the left (antifa) is a problem. Rather than shout each other down, somewhere along the line we need to return to listening to each other.
 
. This is what armed rebellion looks like.
Click to expand...

No, this is not what armed rebellion under the second amendment looks like.

Crockett, I agree with many of your other points, but the constitutional scholar in me is cringing at many people, not just you and posters here, thinking that randomly shooting congressman is a "second amendment solution."

"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."

If a tyrant takes over, the second amendment gives the people the ability resist by organizing themselves in a civilized manner. The intentions of the second amendment have happened twice in US history. The first time was when the colonies organized militias to resist the British. The second time was when the southern states organized militias and attempted to secede (this is not a statement about right or wrong, just a statement about how the second amendment is intended to work in practice). The "second amendment solution" is not random people shooting at their elected officials or even small groups organizing as gangs to do it. The second amendment arms people so that state or local governments could organize a civilized militia in a time of crisis.

I discussed William Quantrill in a post on the confederate statue issue. He was never honored as a confederate hero because he did not act like someone who was rebelling in a civilized, state organized manner. He acted like a bandito (much in the same way the unionists in missouri acted) and he has been remembered as a thug/bandito.

Scalia incorrectly interpreted the second amendment to be "a right of self-defense" under the Heller case. Even that incorrect interpretation by Scalia meant in defense against threat of immediate bodily harm, not shooting elected officials.

Most people in American history understood that shooting elected officials is not a "second amendment solution" which is why you did not hear such talk with JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Lincoln or when anyone else was assassinated. I believe Rand Paul and other elected officials understand this when they talk about the second amendment as a protection against the government (though I could be wrong, who knows). It is not generally irresponsible to bring up a 200+ year old argument for the second amendment.

The problem is we have become a very ignorant society. People do not understand the second amendment anymore (and the NRA definitely carries blame for that). It may be irresponsible to say that the second amendment protects us against a tryannical government because people are ignorant and may actually think that shooting elected officials is "a second amendment solution." The answer is we are in terrible need of better education of the Constitution to our general population as a whole. People do not even know what it is in it, much less the nuances.

Anyway, I see liberals are trying to sieze Second Amendment arguments as an excuse and deflection over a liberal shooter. That is a BS way to respond to this and only spreads further misinterpretation of the second amendment. I, for one, do not put this shooter or liberals or bernie. He is not on liberals, bernie or what republicans said about the second amendment (ignorant populace or not). Republicans never meant "assassinate officials" and I doubt anyone but the most ignorant far right-wingers like that bundy guy or the idiots that attacked a park in Oregon ever meant that. If right-wingers are meaning that, they are in serious need of education like everyone else. However, do not attribute an incorrect meaning to something most of the speakers almost certainly did not mean. (Also, I am not talking about Trump either way because he has no idea what the hell he means most of the time in my opinion).

From columbine, to whitman, to dylan roof to this latest douche, every one of these people has mental problems. They are not getting the proper mental care or are not being identified. In some cases, like Roof, these people should not legally have been able to buy a gun and either the existing law was not followed/enforced or in some cases with people with a history of violence or mental issues, the law could be strengthened.
 
Last edited:
I will make another note on Scalia. The second amendment envisions what Switzerland has where the people, acting as reservists, actually keep their military assault rifles in their homes. Other than the NRA, the vast majority of americans, right or left, do not want to legalize people keeping fully automatic weapons, grenades, etc in their homes. Scalia made up a "right of self defense" because he wanted to keep the existing gun rights and did not want to allow for access to automatic weapons, grenades etc. Simply put, neither side on the court wants to follow what the second amendment really says (and I personally do not think people should have automatic weapons or grenades either) so both sides have gone to pulling things out of their butt when interpreting it. That said, that is not an excuse for anyone, right or left, to claim the second amendment means people can just rebel by themselves willy nilly if they feel like it, because the second amendment does not and never has meant that.
 
Htown77 said:
No, this is not what armed rebellion under the second amendment looks like.

Crockett, I agree with many of your other points, but the constitutional scholar in me is cringing at many people, not just you and posters here, thinking that randomly shooting congressman is a "second amendment solution."

"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."

If a tyrant takes over, the second amendment gives the people the ability resist by organizing themselves in a civilized manner. The intentions of the second amendment have happened twice in US history. The first time was when the colonies organized militias to resist the British. The second time was when the southern states organized militias and attempted to secede (this is not a statement about right or wrong, just a statement about how the second amendment is intended to work in practice). The "second amendment solution" is not random people shooting at their elected officials or even small groups organizing as gangs to do it. The second amendment arms people so that state or local governments could organize a civilized militia in a time of crisis.

I discussed William Quantrill in a post on the confederate statue issue. He was never honored as a confederate hero because he did not act like someone who was rebelling in a civilized, state organized manner. He acted like a bandito (much in the same way the unionists in missouri acted) and he has been remembered as a thug/bandito.

Scalia incorrectly interpreted the second amendment to be "a right of self-defense" under the Heller case. Even that incorrect interpretation by Scalia meant in defense against threat of immediate bodily harm, not shooting elected officials.

Most people in American history understood that shooting elected officials is not a "second amendment solution" which is why you did not hear such talk with JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Lincoln or when anyone else was assassinated. I believe Rand Paul and other elected officials understand this when they talk about the second amendment as a protection against the government (though I could be wrong, who knows). It is not generally irresponsible to bring up a 200+ year old argument for the second amendment.

The problem is we have become a very ignorant society. People do not understand the second amendment anymore (and the NRA definitely carries blame for that). It may be irresponsible to say that the second amendment protects us against a tryannical government because people are ignorant and may actually think that shooting elected officials is "a second amendment solution." The answer is we are in terrible need of better education of the Constitution to our general population as a whole. People do not even know what it is in it, much less the nuances.

Anyway, I see liberals are trying to sieze Second Amendment arguments as an excuse and deflection over a liberal shooter. That is a BS way to respond to this and only spreads further misinterpretation of the second amendment. I, for one, do not put this shooter or liberals or bernie. He is not on liberals, bernie or what republicans said about the second amendment (ignorant populace or not). Republicans never meant "assassinate officials" and I doubt anyone but the most ignorant far right-wingers like that bundy guy or the idiots that attacked a park in Oregon ever meant that. If right-wingers are meaning that, they are in serious need of education like everyone else. However, do not attribute an incorrect meaning to somethint most of the speakers almost certainly did not mean. (Also, I am not talking about Trump either way because he has no idea what the hell he means most of the time in my opinion).

From columbine, to whitman, to dylan roof to this latest douche, every one of these people has mental problems. They are not getting the proper mental care or are not being identified. In some cases, like Roof, these people should not legally have been able to buy a gun and either the existing law was not followed/enforced or in some cases with people with a history of violence or mental issues, the law could be strengthened.
Click to expand...
Dude, the NRA 2nd amendment zealots are going to pile on here. I do agree with you. Also, it would be nice if our government was trying to treat behavioral health issues. They're not.
 
Hown77: I don't disagree with anything you wrote. My point was that in a society where right to vote and free expression are well respected a "Second Amendment Solution" is dangerous and unwise. I very much appreciate your more nuanced and scholarly approach to the issue.
 
Seattle Husker said:
1. This isn't a left or right problem but rather a civil discourse problem. Both sides have their crazies and violence is never a correct remedy. Both sides have their own vitriol that needs to be quelled. Anyone remember this?
Click to expand...
I hate how snippy this sounds, but among the Donald Trump trips off the rails, that one would not have been recalled without your prompt.
 
Okay Crockett, gotcha and I agree. All three branches and the people are all independently and freely operating at this time, even if they are all operating very dysfunctionally. While I may often complain about constitutional violations of the branches (especially the courts), none of them have done anything to merit a second amendment solution. There is no legitmate reason right now to advocate for any second amendment solutions or any politician or citizen to do so (though I am okay with politicans/citizens presenting defense against tyranny arguments in the proper context in gun control debates and not to incite people). For any real or perceived abuses by the president, congress or courts, Greg Abbott went about it the right way by suggesting a constituonal convention and amendments. I read Abbotts amendments, did not like them and do not think a convention is needed at this time. However, that was the proper way to go about it if someone felt constituonal abuses needed to be addressed and free expression/the ballot box are still open as a means to bring about change.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top