1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US Congresswoman critical after nutter gun man lets rip at political event

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Cthippo, 8 Jan 2011.

  1. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,542
    Likes Received:
    1,970
    The anger is about a sense of betrayal. The reason you don't understand it is because you are looking at it from a rational perspective. But it is not rational --it's emotional, and at a fairly primitive, pre-rational level at that. It is all about attachment. Big Daddy promised to make it all alright, but he didn't.

    People are projecting their attachment fantasies on politicians (and on God --why do you think Religion is doing so well in the Bible Belt?) and politicians (and Preachers) are letting them --it's how you get the votes and the money. The flipside is that when promises are not fulfilled, you better blame the other guy quick (Satan, or the other political party, which is the same thing) or people will flip on your ass. It's like Fable: Everybody loves you/Everbody hates you.

    All the other stuff is childlike thinking as well: the world is divided in Good Guys (us) vs Bad Guys (them foreigners), sentimentalism over Mom's apple pie, family values and a simpler, more honest way of life and close-knit community that never really existed except in the misty-eyed vaseline-lens retrospective of naive childhood memory; glorification of guns and tits while getting freaked out by real sexuality, monster trucks and super-size me, who dies with the most toys wins. There is a reason why the US has an obesity problem, an education problem and doesn't like sharing with others and won't play nice with the rest of the world.
     
    Last edited: 10 Jan 2011
  2. hellblazer.doom

    hellblazer.doom What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    20 May 2009
    Posts:
    286
    Likes Received:
    9
    I'm confused...

    Is it not the right of the people to remove a government thats become destructive to it's own end?

    That always makes me laugh because who's going to replace these people you remove? :D Someone else just as corrupt? :eek:
     
  3. Pieface

    Pieface Modder

    Joined:
    8 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    3,355
    Likes Received:
    134
    Is it the right of the people to kill the people to remove a government? I thought the democracy (Which Americans seem proud upon) is a basis on how people have the choice to vote who they want in government. Because one group of people don't like the way a country is run, doesn't mean another (And usually in democracy, bigger) group agree with their sentiments.
     
  4. hellblazer.doom

    hellblazer.doom What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    20 May 2009
    Posts:
    286
    Likes Received:
    9
    I think your missing my point, i wasnt suggesting this shooting was a good thing, i was just stating a fact(that it is the right of the people to remove a government that becomes destructive to it's own ends.). But to answer your question no it isnt right.

    One persons fact is anothers fiction.
     
  5. Pieface

    Pieface Modder

    Joined:
    8 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    3,355
    Likes Received:
    134
    I was talking more in what VipersGratitude was in saying:

     
  6. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    I doubt it will make a difference in the long term. It was suggested that similar rhetoric might have been a contributing factor in the death of Doctor George Tiller, the physician in Kansas who performed abortions. After a few months, the media moved on and things went back to normal.

    Actually, this may drive the wedge farther. Instead of owning up to the comments that they've made, the usual suspects are just shifting the blame as they always have. Watch as each side campaigns even harder to paint the other side as the guilty party. I'm guessing things will continue to get worse before they get any better.

    One interesting thing I've noted in all the coverage is the perceived relevance of the victims' ages. Up to now the three key victims have been Giffords (the intended target), the federal judge (the high-profile death), and the nine-year-old girl (the media-pathic death with the coincidental and sound-bite worthy 9/11 birth date). Really, the media is piling the slop in the trough, and the pigs are eating it up and digesting it accordingly.
     
  7. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    The intent is, or was anyway, for the people to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government which has quashed the democratic system. So long as the democracy is still functioning there shouldn't be a need to exercise this option. That's the theory anyway.

    The gun ownership debate is an interesting one because it talks about everything BUT the real issue, which is one of personal power. When I have a gun I have the ability to kill you. This gives me a certain power over you (with your consent of course). Even if you only believe I have a gun, I still have that same power over you. Many people in the US like the feeling of power that having a gun provides them. For many, that feeling of power is translated into a sense of security. I have a gun in my house and so if you threaten me I can threaten you back or kill you before you can hurt me. When you start talking about taking away people's guns you're talking about taking away some of their power and their security and they tend to react strongly to that.

    The counter point is that the rest of us don't particularly like the fact that any random person we meet might be carrying a gun and have the power to kill us if they see fit. Bubba sitting over there in his truck with a gun rack behind the seat is someone who can potentially kill me if he feels like it. Never mind that he's doing nothing more than eating lunch and reading the Wall Street Journal, the mere fact that he has a gun makes him a potential threat.

    This is also the basis of at least some of the animosity towards the police. Here is someone who has the power to pull you over, arrest you or even shoot you, and there is essentially nothing you can do about it. No matter what, if you challenge them you are going to lose. This breeds a certain sense of fear in people, even those who are doing nothing wrong, and fear is often expressed as anger. I can be walking down the street minding my own business and any cop can come up and hassle me or arrest me or kill me and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't particularly like that feeling.

    That's not to say that this applies to all gun owners. many own guns simply because they like shooting or enjoy collecting them. There are many legitimate shooting sports and not all of them even involve killing things.

    Full disclosure: I own 2 guns, both .22 caliber rifles, one of which actually works. So far I haven't fired either of them since I've owned them because I haven't been ambitious enough to find out where and when I can go to legally shoot.

    @Supermonkey. I find it interesting that he has NOT been charged with those deaths. So far the only charges have been attempting to assassinate a member of congress, killing of a federal employee, and attempted killing of a federal employee. I'm sure the others will follow, but this certainly doesn't seem like "equal justice for all".

    EDIT: He was charged in federal court and the charges for the rest of the victims will have to be handled in state court because the feds don't have jurisdiction unless the crime crosses state lines.
     
    Last edited: 10 Jan 2011
    stonedsurd likes this.
  8. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,519
    Likes Received:
    831
    Remember how America was born...In rebellion against excessive taxes from the ruling government, us, the British. They took up arms, and won.

    I just thought I'd raise the point considering she was pro-gun ownership, a constitutional right. Will she still be pro-gun after this? If she is she will essentially vindicate his actions as constitutional...if not then she chooses her own personal safety over the "supreme law" of the US.
     
  9. stonedsurd

    stonedsurd Is a cackling Yuletide Belgian

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    7,821
    Likes Received:
    357
    His actions are not constitutional. His possession of a weapon is. Don't confuse the two.
     
  10. Pieface

    Pieface Modder

    Joined:
    8 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    3,355
    Likes Received:
    134
    That's how America was born, not how America is now. America isn't a country divided by two governance. That was a battle against colonisation. It was a battle against money.

    America is a country that is too big to work (As it's proven itself). All you need is one nutter with a gun, to do what HE thinks is right, to end up killing someone. JFK story is similar. People don't always get what they want, and using your second amendment as a right in that sense is the reason people laugh at America. You pride yourself upon democracy, and then when you don't get what you want you try and kill the person who you don't agree with. Sound extremely democratic.
     
  11. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    VipersGratitude does make a good observation. Giffords was/is very much pro-gun ownership. When her office was vandalized during the health care debate, she quipped, "I have a Glock 9mm and I'm a pretty good shot." It serves as an example of how the violent rhetoric came from both sides of the aisle. If she ever recovers to the point that she can hold a reasonable conversation (for a given value of...), it will be interesting to hear her opinion on the gun control issue, and whether or not she will still boast of her ability to defend herself with a firearm.
     
  12. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    For those interested in raw data, the site Above Top Secret has a number of threads they believe were started by the shooter. ATS is a fringe conspiracy site that was linked to as a joke in a serious security blog.

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread649091/pg1
     
  13. stonedsurd

    stonedsurd Is a cackling Yuletide Belgian

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    7,821
    Likes Received:
    357
  14. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    All I can really say about that website is: White text on a dark background! MY EYES!!
     
  15. PhoenixTank

    PhoenixTank From The Ashes

    Joined:
    5 May 2010
    Posts:
    465
    Likes Received:
    28
    I'm going to refrain from comments on the actual issue, but this response to one of the shooter's (supposed) topics (about infinite date/year/time or something?) sums up the messed up situation perfectly, imho.

    [​IMG]
    Glad to be sheltered here. At worst, we have a chav stab a someone once or twice a year.
     
  16. stonedsurd

    stonedsurd Is a cackling Yuletide Belgian

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    7,821
    Likes Received:
    357
    amen
     
  17. Cookiemonster101

    Cookiemonster101 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    78
    Likes Received:
    2
    What in the constitution states that he can rightfully attempt to assassinate her and kill 6 other people, are you mad? This is not logical thinking.

    It scares me when I see comments on news sites saying that this was a good thing, even blaming Obama for it. What happened here had nothing to do with either political party, it had to do with a young man who was seriously insane. One thing that should be highlighted by this: the violent rhetoric that has been used in politics is not needed and harmful at best.
     
  18. Cookiemonster101

    Cookiemonster101 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2005
    Posts:
    78
    Likes Received:
    2
    I found it hard to understand your first sentence. Do you mean 'Palin for President' as in the chance that she would actually become President, or were you referring to a nomination? I don't know why people are saying Obama doesn't have a great shot to win it again. Sure, Palin is fairly popular, but she has a reality tv show for heavens sake :eyebrow: Key point: she's not taken seriously by a large amount of people.

    I'm confident he will be elected again. He's been super productive and has gained a lot of momentum lately. The Tea Party/Sarah Palin/Republican party will all rip each other apart and that will leave Obama with a clear path. Maybe I'm so confident because it's scary to think of what would happen if Palin or someone like her was elected...shudder.
     
  19. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    And there's the rub. Loughner clearly had some mental health issues. Will this highlight the importance of understanding mental illness? Will this lead to reforms in the mental health industry? Will anyone give any thought as to how a person's brain can stop working correctly?

    In my opinion, Loughner may not be morally culpable for his actions. Were they terrible? Yes, undoubtedly so. Was he thinking clearly? No, most assuredly not. Physiologically speaking, he may not be any more morally culpable than someone who has a seizure while driving and ends up running over a pedestrian.

    Something else to take away from all of this is the way we consider mental illness when it is convenient. When US soldiers take it upon themselves to commit immoral acts against prisoners, we attempt to explain it by suggesting that the soldiers are young, and their conditions are just so emotionally trying that they ended up making poor judgments. We are expect to feel for the soldiers, to pity them as victims of their harsh and unforgiving environment.

    When someone like Loughner shoots a bunch of people in a crowd, we just call him a pot-smoking liberal. Or, when a young male in the Middle East is exposed to violence on a daily basis, and lives every day watching the West rape his country and kill his innocent friends and family, and ends up giving in to fundamentalist ideology, we just shrug and say, "Well, that's Muslims for you."

    No, instead of the country coming together to ask difficult questions about how or why this happened, instead of asking about the effects of violence-laced political vitriol in an over-saturated 24-hour news cycle (indirect as they may be), Republican Congressman Peter King just called for a law banning the carrying of guns within 1,000 feet of federal officials. Politicians (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) - self-serving to the end.

    As any rational person can tell you, knee-jerk reactions are always the best way to deal with life's difficult decisions.
     
    TCoZ, Nexxo and specofdust like this.
  20. Guest-23315

    Guest-23315 Guest

    Interesting twist of events, and I have to say that until I see some decent evidence to contrary, i'd probably tend to agree with the media. Palin is BAD NEWS. Mark my words.

     

Share This Page