Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 14, 2017

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise is in critical condition after being shot at a Congressional baseball practice in Alexandria Virginia, MedStar Hospital in Washington has announced. The man suspected of shooting Scalise and four others is dead, President Trump said. ... Those injured: Scalise, Zachary Barth, Matt Mika, Spec. Agt. David Bailey, Spec. Agt. Crystal Grine. They were at a practice for the upcoming charity baseball game. The shooting suspect was identified as James Hodgkinson, 66, of Bellville, Illinois. While the hospital said Scalise's condition is critical, his office released a statement saying he is in "good spirits" and has been released from surgery.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I hope Scalise and all the other injured people make a full and speedy recovery.

We are fortunate that the security detail was there. Otherwise we could be reading about 8-12 members of Congress being killed in a mass shooting. That would be one of the worst days in our country's history. An attack on a sitting member of Congress is an attack on the entire country.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2017-06-14 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Amen, RCade.

This should be a sobering moment for both the far left and alt-right, but given the rampant stupidity of both sides (as we see daily here on the DR) I am sure that the message will go right over their heads.

#2 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 05:13 PM | Reply

Rep. Scalise in Critical Condition After Shooting

Cry me a river.

Many people are in critical condition after many shootings because of gun policies that people like Scalise defend. [...]

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lots of women will fall victim to a lot more violence due to his opposition to the violence against women act.

And they are actally innocent.

#4 | Posted by Kreator at 2017-06-14 05:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#2 obviously went miles over Speak's head.

#6 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 05:28 PM | Reply

Maybe this will end up being a good thing. We all know the only way to get republicans to care about anything is for it to affect them or their families directly.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 05:35 PM | Reply

#7-8

Nice backpedal, not buying it.

You are exactly the type of "rampantly stupid" poster that my #2 was referencing.

#9 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 05:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is a small price to pay for the right to bear arms.

#10 | Posted by bored at 2017-06-14 05:40 PM | Reply

You are exactly the type of "rampantly stupid" poster that my #2 was referencing.

#9 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER AT 2017-06-14 05:38 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Do you see his point tho? It is valid to point to policy decisions that led us here. Timing may be off, but ...

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-06-14 05:45 PM | Reply

As far as extremist of any ilk, they become more and more similar as they progress. The KKK with the exception of the objects of their hate is almost identical to the Nation of Islam, the rhetoric of one can be used be the other by simply changing some nouns. The Antifa thugs and the "stick men" both use violence, but it seems the white nationalist or maybe just some guys who like to fight can make fools out of snowflakes fresh from their mom's basement. I am sure in the near future Antifa will compensate for a lack of ability in street fighting and start bringing guns to their gatherings, as they have already promised. I viewed some of their Youtube rants showing off their recent purchases, and I am confident if they actually used a firearm, their intended target is likely very safe. The others on a crowded street is another mater all together.
The shooter in this case was a moderate leftist, typical Maddcow fan. His political beliefs do not excuse his behavior. He was a licensed fire arm carrier from one of the most gun restrictive states in this nation. His objective was to kill Republicans. I don't blame MSNBC, or his beliefs, I blame him. His actions got himself killed. His actions are what we should condemn.
First rule in an armed society, Don't shoot at people who are not a direct threat, they tend to shoot back.

#13 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-06-14 05:47 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Do you see his point tho? It is valid to point to policy decisions that led us here. Timing may be off, but ...

#12 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2017-06-14 05:45 PM | FLAG:

Can we not engage in policy or ethics discussion without wishing death on the other side?

#14 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 05:48 PM | Reply

First rule in an armed society, Don't shoot at people who are not a direct threat, they tend to shoot back.

#13 | POSTED BY DOCNJO AT 2017-06-14 05:47 PM | FLAG:

Just what we need: everyone joining in the shooting.

#15 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 05:52 PM | Reply

No one is talking about wishing death on the other side. But if, as a legislator, you vote to eliminate stop lights at intersections, then don't be surprised when you get run over.

#16 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-14 05:54 PM | Reply

Can we not engage in policy or ethics discussion without wishing death on the other side?

#14 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

That's an excellent question.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 05:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No one is talking about wishing death on the other side. But if, as a legislator, you vote to eliminate stop lights at intersections, then don't be surprised when you get run over.

#16 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2017-06-14 05:54 PM | FLAG:

That is surely not the same thing.

#18 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 05:57 PM | Reply

Can we not engage in policy or ethics discussion without wishing death on the other side?
#14 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

When you're discussing policies that promote death, then no, you cannot. People have said that the policies Scalise promoted would lead to more death. Saying they were proven right is not wishing death.

#19 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-14 06:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But I recognize the irony and poetic justice of a gun defender and mental health cutter getting shot by a crazy person.

#20 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 06:01 PM | FLAG:

There is no justice in someone getting murdered that way, poetic or otherwise. Your claim to the contrary validates the crime.

#21 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That is surely not the same thing.
#18 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

It is. If, as a legislator, you promote policies that make guns more accessible, and make help for mental problems harder to get, then you have made the chance of getting shot by a crazy person becomes more of a feasible reality.
He got hoisted by his own petard.

#22 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-14 06:03 PM | Reply

"When you're discussing policies that promote death, then no, you cannot."

Then there is nothing left to do but fight because the discourse has broken down. I trust you will like that arrangement better.

#23 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:04 PM | Reply

Your claim to the contrary validates the crime.
#21 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

No, it validates the idea that this guys policy increased the chances of something like this happening.

#24 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-14 06:05 PM | Reply

I don't see how in a discussion of guns and mental health, you can leave the subject of death out.

#25 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-14 06:06 PM | Reply

I don't blame MSNBC, or his beliefs, I blame him. His actions got himself killed. His actions are what we should condemn.
First rule in an armed society, Don't shoot at people who are not a direct threat, they tend to shoot back.

#13 | Posted by docnjo

Yet if it weren't for republican gun policies, he'd have been running around the baseball field trying to stab people with a knife instead of shooting them with a gun.

Or maybe he'd already have received the mental health support he needed to not become a murderer.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:06 PM | Reply

There is no justice in someone getting murdered that way, poetic or otherwise. Your claim to the contrary validates the crime.

#21 | Posted by DirkStruan

LEGAL justice and POETIC justice are 2 entirely different matters.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:06 PM | Reply

"First rule in an armed society, Don't shoot at people who are not a direct threat, they tend to shoot back."

So there's no way to get out in front of shootings in an armed society and stop them before they start. The best you can hope for is someone shoots the shooter before she shoots too many people.

Perhaps that's why some people aren't a fan of armed societies.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 06:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Can we not engage in policy or ethics discussion without wishing death on the other side?

#14 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2017-06-14 05:48 PM | FLAG:

Nobody is. Can we discuss gun violence and mental health issues without accusing others of wishing death?

#29 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-06-14 06:08 PM | Reply

Perhaps that's why some people aren't a fan of armed societies.

#28 | Posted by snoofy

Smart people arent. For some reason, the dumber someone is, the more they tend to love guns.

Maybe they feel powerless with their low wattage brains, and guns make them feel empowered.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:09 PM | Reply

#29 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2017-06-14 06:08 PM | FLAG:

If there is a difference between wishing death on the either side and gloating when death comes to them about how they had it coming, it sure as hell is mot big enough to quibble over.

#32 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:10 PM | Reply

Our legal system didn't hold him accountable for the harm his policies did to others, but karma did.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:11 PM | Reply

No, it validates the idea that this guys policy increased the chances of something like this happening.

#24 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2017-06-14 06:05 PM | FLAG:

There is a big difference between observing probabilities and declaring this attempted murder "poetic justice" and you damn well know it. Stop poisoning the discourse.

#35 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well he is not from my district but we take this as an attack on Louisiana voters from the anti Trump left.

#37 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-06-14 06:15 PM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 06:11 PM | FLAG:

[...] not even close to how Karma works. Work on your religious literacy.

#38 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:16 PM | Reply

Well he is not from my district but we take this as an attack on Louisiana voters from the anti Trump left.

#37 | POSTED BY TMASTER AT 2017-06-14 06:15 PM | FLAG:

Stop escalating.

#39 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:17 PM | Reply

Well he is not from my district but we take this as an attack on Louisiana voters from the anti Trump left.

#37 | Posted by tmaster

You take the skidmarks in your underwear as an attack from the anti trump left.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:20 PM | Reply

His policies got others shot and he didn't care, then they got himself shot. That is how karma works.

#43 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 06:22 PM | FLAG:

Karma is an ancient religious concept associated with dharmic traditions, you religiously illiterate, and no, that is not at all how it works.

And you have not the first clue what he "cared" about! He could be the best intentioned person in the world for all you know, but you've wasted no time in dehumanizing him. He has kids, a family.

#46 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:26 PM | Reply

#44 | Posted by DirkStruan

[...] It's pretty funny watching you try to come up with democrat positions as death-causing as republicans though. Failed housing projects? Nice try.

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:29 PM | Reply

So half the country deserve to get shot. Got it. Good luck getting anything done with that attitude.

#47 | Posted by DirkStruan

Far more than half the country agrees that gun regs need to be tougher. It's only the NRA and fox news morons who won't allow it to happen.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is not poetic justice that a gun rights supporter and a person who wanted to defund help for the mentally gets shot by someone who was mentally ill but it is ironic. As Alanis Morisette mentioned in the song someone else referred to up the thread.

#51 | Posted by danni at 2017-06-14 06:31 PM | Reply

#35 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN:

It IS poetic justice. Whether you are too stupid to see it or are too ignorant of the definition of poetic justice; it still qualifies as such. Is it legal justice? No. Is it something I personally condone? No. But you are a fool or an ignorant to claim it is not poetic justice.

#52 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-06-14 06:32 PM | Reply

#48 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 06:29 PM | FLAG:

So everyone deserves death, based solely on advocacy. Got it.
Your "ethics" are perverse and disturbing. They also eliminate the differences between political beliefs. So, you know, good job with that too.

#53 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:32 PM | Reply

"His votes and speeches tell me what he cares about - NRA bribe money."

Right. Because it is impossible he believes his policies serve a real good. You are dehumanizing again and dehumanization is deadlier than any gun.

"You want me to care about his kids when he doesn't care about the kids that his policies get killed?"

Yes. It is called compassion and humanity. Try it some time.

#56 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:38 PM | Reply

"Not just advocacy. He was in a position of power, able to DO SOMETHING to restrict guns."

One among thousands. And, isn't anyone who votes in a position to "do something" too? Who can stand, if we apply your standards?

#57 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes. It is called compassion and humanity. Try it some time.

#56 | Posted by DirkStruan

I've got plenty of it. That's why I vote for the party that will raise my taxes to give healthcare to the less fortunate, instead of the party that takes their healthcare away to give tax cuts to the rich. Since you're such a compassionate person, I'm sure you vote the same way.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:43 PM | Reply

"Who is innocent enough to not deserve death, if all it takes is belief or advocacy (as one among very many)?"

The House Majority Whip is a hell of a lot more than an advocate.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 06:44 PM | Reply

#60 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer

Yes preach to us about moral compasses while you take health care from the sick and give guns to the wackjobs.

#62 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 06:54 PM | Reply

I don't see how in a discussion of guns and mental health, you can leave the subject of death out.

Anyone who can't discuss this without wishing death on politicians -- or saying they deserve to get shot -- needs to get the hell out. I don't allow that kind of talk, as I've said many times.

#63 | Posted by rcade at 2017-06-14 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Anyone who can't discuss this without wishing death on politicians..." - #63 | Posted by rcade at 2017-06-14 06:55 PM

Sadly, this all got its start with the relatively-innocuous "government isn't the solution, government is the problem," and others just took it from there to this, sad, inevitable, conclusion.

#65 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-14 07:04 PM | Reply

#62

Ready, fire, aim...

You obviously don't pay attention to the substance of my posts from a political standpoint.

#67 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 07:07 PM | Reply

Just have do blame the guns do you not? Do not want to face the fact that once again a wacko libbie has 'left the reservation', no doubt driven over the line by the constantly spewed vitriolic attacks which dribble out of dem mouths [and their major media] in their hate filled rhetoric.

#68 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-06-14 07:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Anyone who can't discuss this without wishing death on politicians -- or saying they deserve to get shot -- needs to get the hell out. I don't allow that kind of talk, as I've said many times.

#63 | POSTED BY RCADE

Please show where anyone has said either of those things.

#69 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-06-14 07:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#69

Those are the deleted posts, obviously, you can't be that obtuse.

#70 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 07:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just have do blame the guns do you not? Do not want to face the fact that once again a wacko libbie has 'left the reservation', no doubt driven over the line by the constantly spewed vitriolic attacks which dribble out of dem mouths [and their major media] in their hate filled rhetoric.

#68 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2017-06-14 07:08 PM | FLAG:

How exactly is a comment like this at all helpful? Why don't we all just condemn this sort of violence? Express a little concern for the victims? Is that really too much to ask?

#71 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dirk, do you reject Live by the sword die by the sword as a reasonable moral precept, or just say it doesn't apply to the 250 or so House legislators who favor guns passing more readily into the hands of mentally ill people?

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 07:12 PM | Reply

Just have do blame the guns do you not? Do not want to face the fact that once again a wacko libbie has 'left the reservation', no doubt driven over the line by the constantly spewed vitriolic attacks which dribble out of dem mouths [and their major media] in their hate filled rhetoric.

#68 | Posted by MSgt

The party who just voted to cut mental health support no longer gets to say "it's not a gun problem it's a mental health problem"

Other countries have crazy people too, but they're smart enough to keep them from getting guns so they don't have nearly as much death as we do.

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 07:13 PM | Reply

Dirk, do you reject Live by the sword die by the sword as a reasonable moral precept, or just say it doesn't apply to the 250 or so House legislators who favor guns passing more readily into the hands of mentally ill people?

#72 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 07:12 PM | FLAG:

Read my posts! Can there be a doubt as to my answer? Of course I reject it. I believe in reducing violence. And yes, I am very anti-gun and yes, I am very anti-death penalty, and yes, I am sick and tired of all comers to the tattered remnant of the political discourse howling for blood or marinating in schadenfreude with each new headline. I believe that when we give up on talking we will end up fighting and I believe that IF that happens, all the problems we care about just get worse.

#74 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 07:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's nice to see that we have a couple of grown ups posting on this thread.

#65 Hans

Please elaborate. I'm not getting your point (I can be a bit slow).

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 07:18 PM | Reply

#74 Dirk

NW.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 07:19 PM | Reply

Speak: There is no framing that will make it permissible on the Retort to say what you did. I was born in Dallas to two parents who were on the motorcade route as teens in 1963 and saw JFK minutes before his death -- including a mother whose large Catholic family adored him. I draw the line at this stuff.

#77 | Posted by rcade at 2017-06-14 07:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I am sick and tired of all comers to the tattered remnant of the political discourse howling for blood or marinating in schadenfreude with each new headline. I believe that when we give up on talking we will end up fighting and I believe that IF that happens, all the problems we care about just get worse.

Bears repeating.

#78 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 07:24 PM | Reply

Read my posts! Can there be a doubt as to my answer? Of course I reject it. I believe in reducing violence. And yes, I am very anti-gun and yes, I am very anti-death penalty, and yes, I am sick and tired of all comers to the tattered remnant of the political discourse howling for blood or marinating in schadenfreude with each new headline. I believe that when we give up on talking we will end up fighting and I believe that IF that happens, all the problems we care about just get worse.

#74 | Posted by DirkStruan

So why is it liberals who always have to take the high road?

Liberals did not ruin political discourse, conservative media did, and republicans encouraged it and reaped the rewards.
"You lie!" Remember?

Did voters care in 2016 about the high road? Or did they reward the most disgusting candidate in american history simply for "telling it like it is?"

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 07:24 PM | Reply

"Please elaborate. I'm not getting your point..." - #75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 07:18 PM

It isn't too far of a stretch to go from "government isn't the solution, government is the problem" to "government is the enemy."

See: Everyone from Timothy McViegh to the Cliven Bundy "group."

You really didn't see that coming?

Really?

#80 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-14 07:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Speak: There is no framing that will make it permissible on the Retort to say what you did. I was born in Dallas to two parents who were on the motorcade route as teens in 1963 and saw JFK minutes before his death -- including a mother whose large Catholic family adored him. I draw the line at this stuff.

#77 | Posted by rcade

It's your blog you can draw the line at puppies and rainbows if you want.

I don't want anyone to get killed unless their death will save innocent lives.
I simply appreciate poetic karmic justice when I see it. A pro gun, anti-mental healthcare politician getting shot by a wackjob with an assault rifle.
He didn't die. And as I said, since republicans don't care about issues that haven't affected them personally, maybe this will lead to a change in some republican minds, which could lead to SAVED LIVES.

#81 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 07:28 PM | Reply

Thank you for the clarification, Hans.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 07:31 PM | Reply

#65

I am with Jeff, I am not sure where you are going here.

#83 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 07:32 PM | Reply

Hans,

What you are quoting is RW mantra. The problem with applying that to this shooting is this guy was a Lefty in his personal politics.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 07:32 PM | Reply

A little slow in posting, I agree with that analysis.

#85 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-14 07:34 PM | Reply

Hans,

This guy didn't think government was the enemy, he thought Republicans were the enemy.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 07:34 PM | Reply

"What you are quoting is RW mantra." - #84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 07:32 PM

I quote, you decide.

#87 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-14 07:35 PM | Reply

This guy didn't think government was the enemy, he thought Republicans were the enemy.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ

From the point of view of sick people, poor people, innocent shooting victims, and polar bears, he's right.

#88 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 07:36 PM | Reply

There are a lot of scenarios where wishing just desserts on a politician is not something anyone would question.

Violence isn't one of them.

A violent attack on a U.S. politician is an attack on us all. It's an attack on our democracy.

You keep saying "he didn't die" without knowing how serious his injuries are, as if that makes what you said less of an issue.

Gabby Giffords didn't die. Her injuries were devastating and took years of recovery. Does that make violent rhetoric directed at Congress before her shooting more acceptable? Hells no.

#89 | Posted by rcade at 2017-06-14 07:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Are we supposed to care?
The shooting of a politician is as meaningless as anybody else without rank.

#90 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-14 07:38 PM | Reply

This guy didn't think government was the enemy, he thought Republicans were the enemy.

He was also a foster father with one foster daughter he was charged with beating up and another who fatally set herself on fire at age 17 while under his care.

We will likely find he had rage and violence issues far beyond his political beliefs.

#91 | Posted by rcade at 2017-06-14 07:39 PM | Reply

So why is it liberals who always have to take the high road?
Liberals did not ruin political discourse, conservative media did, and republicans encouraged it and reaped the rewards.
"You lie!" Remember?
Did voters care in 2016 about the high road? Or did they reward the most disgusting candidate in american history simply for "telling it like it is?"
#79 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 07:24 PM | FLAG:

You think I don't understand all that? You think I don't see how damned unfair it can be?

But we cannot go on like this, and if we focus endlessly on those things you mention, that is exactly what we will do. And yes, both sides must give. I believe, truly, that people on both sides are willing and capable of that, if they are shown the way. And maybe that is a leap of faith. But at this point, what other choice remains?

#92 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Rcade,

I don't blame left wing politics or rhetoric for this.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 07:41 PM | Reply

"A violent attack on a U.S. politician is an attack on us all. It's an attack on our democracy."

Hear hear.

Remember when that RNC office in NC was vandalized/burned and the DNC raised funds to have it repaired? Surely, it hurt a bit when the GOP won the state. But it was the right thing to do. It was the honorable thing to do (in the most basic sense of a refusal to take unfair advantage, a fidelity to the system and the process, even to one's temporary detriment).

So should we be in responding to this outrage.

#94 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 07:43 PM | Reply

Are we supposed to care?
The shooting of a politician is as meaningless as anybody else without rank.

#90 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-06-14 07:38 PM | FLAG:

Then don't care about him as a politician. Care about him as your brother human being. And perhaps that is all the better anyway.

#95 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 07:44 PM | Reply

I don't blame left wing politics or rhetoric for this.

I don't either. I do wonder whether it happens without the huge amount of anger in our politics from 2016 to today. I won't make the claim that's all coming from one side.

#96 | Posted by rcade at 2017-06-14 07:46 PM | Reply

But we cannot go on like this, and if we focus endlessly on those things you mention, that is exactly what we will do. And yes, both sides must give. I believe, truly, that people on both sides are willing and capable of that, if they are shown the way. And maybe that is a leap of faith. But at this point, what other choice remains?

#92 | Posted by DirkStruan

Except republicans NEVER give. On ANYTHING. They're still trying to start the drug war back up and say trickle down economics will work. They're the last people on earth saying climate change is a hoax.

Democrats give, and compromise, and sell out, and cave. And then they get voted out.

Yeah I guess letting republicans win is one way to create political peace, but it makes for a worse planet and life for almost everyone.

#97 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 07:49 PM | Reply

The party who just voted to cut mental health support no longer gets to say "it's not a gun problem it's a mental health problem"

#73 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

BINGO!!!!

It's amazing that after the extremist right starts caring about mental health care and it's funding that they took away, only AFTER some of their folks are victims it's a problem.

I'm sure their tune will be back to Taxcuts for billionaires shortly.

#98 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-06-14 07:54 PM | Reply

Care about him as your brother human being.
#95 | Posted by DirkStruan

Try that line on this site with regards to the many wars instigated by Washington.

#99 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-14 07:57 PM | Reply

"Except republicans NEVER give. On ANYTHING. They're still trying to start the drug war back up and say trickle down economics will work. They're the last people on earth saying climate change is a hoax."

Compromises and cooperation still happen. And so what if it is rarer now than it was before? You will abandon a centuries old system because of a couple decades of difficulty?

"Democrats give, and compromise, and sell out, and cave. And then they get voted out.
Yeah I guess letting republicans win is one way to create political peace, but it makes for a worse planet and life for almost everyone."

Worse than actual civil war? And no one is proposing giving up the struggle. I am proposing a repudiation of violence and the poisoning of the discourse and an openness to cooperation and compromise. Let the struggle be with words so it is not taken up with guns.

#100 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Try that line on this site with regards to the many wars instigated by Washington.
#99 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-06-14 07:57 PM | FLAG:

I do.

#101 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 08:00 PM | Reply

#101 | Posted by DirkStruan

I have a pretty good idea what the reactions were.

#102 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-14 08:03 PM | Reply

I have a pretty good idea what the reactions were.

#102 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-06-14 08:03 PM | FLAG:

Much maligned it has ever been... but it does have a certain staying power. Like your own rejection of hierarchy.

#103 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 08:05 PM | Reply

Like your own rejection of hierarchy.

I never thought about it in those words. That's the best summation I've seen.

#104 | Posted by Ray at 2017-06-14 08:10 PM | Reply

I am proposing a repudiation of violence and the poisoning of the discourse and an openness to cooperation and compromise. Let the struggle be with words so it is not taken up with guns.

#100 | Posted by DirkStruan

That requires two sides to take that approach, and one of them never will.
So it's simply unilateral disarmament for dems.

#105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 08:11 PM | Reply

The Antifa thugs and the "stick men" both use violence, but it seems the white nationalist or maybe just some guys who like to fight can make fools out of snowflakes fresh from their mom's basement.

This line shows that you're rooting for one team (violent alt-right clowns) over the other (violent antifa clowns).

If you don't recognize that clowns on both sides are just as likely to be dependent on their parents, you should take off the blinders.

#106 | Posted by rcade at 2017-06-14 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That requires two sides to take that approach, and one of them never will.
So it's simply unilateral disarmament for dems.

#105 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 08:11 PM | FLAG:

Even if it is as bad as all that, unilateral disarmament can be its own kind of strategy. It seemed to work pretty well for Gahndi and King.

#107 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 08:16 PM | Reply

Even if it is as bad as all that, unilateral disarmament can be its own kind of strategy. It seemed to work pretty well for Gahndi and King.

#107 | Posted by DirkStruan

Yeah that's why we have the Voting Rights Ac- oh wait...

#108 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 08:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats:

agree with us or

we spit on you

we throw eggs at you

we have violent protests

we beat you up

we shoot at you

#109 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-06-14 08:21 PM | Reply

Yeah that's why we have the Voting Rights Ac- oh wait...

#108 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 08:19 PM | FLAG:

Touché.

#110 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 08:23 PM | Reply

Republicans:

agree with us or

we spit on you

we throw eggs at you

we have violent protests

we beat you up

we shoot at you

That was easy.

#111 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-14 08:25 PM | Reply

"And yes, both sides must give."

There is no new gun regulation they can agree to, and plenty of existing ones they'd like to see undone.

You've spend most of this thread wishing in one hand; you know the rest.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This guy didn't think government was the enemy, he thought Republicans were the enemy."

Seeing as Republicans control the aspect of government he tried to Second Amendment remedy... at this point, what difference does it make?

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 08:30 PM | Reply

There is no new gun regulation they can agree to, and plenty of existing ones they'd like to see undone.
You've spend most of this thread wishing in one hand; you know the rest.

#112 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 08:27 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

I was making a broader point: one you are ignoring.

#114 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 08:33 PM | Reply

I don't think you're making a point so much as you're making a wish.

Name anything the GOP has given ground on since Jan 20, 2009, and you might have a point though.

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 08:42 PM | Reply

I don't think you're making a point so much as you're making a wish.

#115 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 08:42 PM | FLAG:

You'd be mistaken. Read my posts. Start with #100.

#116 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 08:45 PM | Reply

Name anything the GOP has given ground on since Jan 20, 2009, and you might have a point though.

#115 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Sequestration. The last 2 budgets. Just to name a couple.

#117 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 08:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And just for the record:

www.google.com

Here is a nice timeline from an organization that keeps track of these things: bipartisanpolicy.org

#118 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 08:52 PM | Reply

"Sequestration. The last 2 budgets. Just to name a couple."

You mean when the Old Guard GOP stopped the Alt Right GOP from making Uncle Sam default?

So, not defaulting was a compromise, in your view?

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 08:54 PM | Reply

The tax increase on income over $400k.

#120 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You mean when the Old Guard GOP stopped the Alt Right GOP from making Uncle Sam default?
So, not defaulting was a compromise, in your view?

#119 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 08:54 PM | FLAG:

And there you go with the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.

#121 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 08:57 PM | Reply

"Compromises and cooperation still happen."

Not on anything substantial, except for that one time the GOP "compromised" and allowed the United States to not go bankrupt.

I'll read your link though.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 08:58 PM | Reply

Not on anything substantial, except for that one time the GOP "compromised" and allowed the United States to not go bankrupt.
I'll read your link though.

#122 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 08:58 PM | FLAG:

How about my post #100? We are to give up on the system because of some difficulty? You won't catch me accusing the modern GOP of being shining beacons of civic compromise, but the answer is not to dehumanize each other, surely.

#123 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:00 PM | Reply

but the answer is not to dehumanize each other, surely.

#123 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Sadly, there is a lot of that going around.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 09:02 PM | Reply

"The tax increase on income over $400k."

Wasn't that part of not defaulting? I already gave you that one. Except to call that a compromise is a bit off, considering the catastrophe that would take place otherwise.

That's more like the GOP played chicken with fiscal reality and they got wise rather than see their bluff through to the end.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:04 PM | Reply

The tax increase was because the Bush-era tax cuts were sunsetting. So, if nothing was done, ALL of the rates would have gone up, and neither party wanted that. Or, they compromise, which is what happened.

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-14 09:05 PM | Reply

Your list includes incredibly bad policy that you are hinting is good just because it was bipartisan.

Like the Iraq War and permanent surveillance.

And to count dead legislation like McCain Feingold is disingenuous.

Is that site satire? It is, right? Who else could write what they did about 9/11.

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:09 PM | Reply

But I recognize the irony and poetic justice of a gun defender and mental health cutter getting shot by a crazy person.
#20 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 06:01 PM | FLAG:
There is no justice in someone getting murdered that way, poetic or otherwise. Your claim to the contrary validates the crime.

Karma?

#128 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-06-14 09:10 PM | Reply

Your list includes incredibly bad policy that you are hinting is good just because it was bipartisan.
Like the Iraq War and permanent surveillance.
And to count dead legislation like McCain Feingold is disingenuous.
Is that site satire? It is, right? Who else could write what they did about 9/11.

#127 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 09:09 PM | FLAG:

You didn't ask for good policy. You asked for bipartisanship. I gave examples. So, it is possible in principle. And some of it was good policy (you mentioned campaign finance). Did you read the link from 2015 as well? Hard to object to highway funding and medical reform.

#129 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:12 PM | Reply

"So, if nothing was done, ALL of the rates would have gone up, and neither party wanted that. Or, they compromise, which is what happened."

It's hardly a compromise when we both agreed do the same thing.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:12 PM | Reply

It's hardly a compromise when we both agreed do the same thing.

#130 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 09:12 PM | FLAG:

An agreement! Even better!

#131 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:13 PM | Reply

"You didn't ask for good policy. You asked for bipartisanship."

Is not the crux of your argument that we need bipartisan policy because it results in better policy?

If not, why are you so insistent compromise is needed???

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:15 PM | Reply

"An agreement! Even better!"

Congrats on the elaborate trolll job.

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:17 PM | Reply

Is not the crux of your argument that we need bipartisan policy because it results in better policy?
If not, why are you so insistent compromise is needed???

#132 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 09:15 PM | FLAG:

Again, my concern is broader. What I want is a repudiation of violence and the poisoning of the discourse. I want a renewed commitment to working within the democratic process. Compromise is sometimes a part of that. Other times it is as simple as keeping our political disputes from
Turning violent.

#134 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:19 PM | Reply

HANS, but not true

that was easy

#135 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-06-14 09:19 PM | Reply

Congrats on the elaborate trolll job.

#133 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 09:17 PM | FLAG:

Excuse me? You asked for compromise and cooperation, you get numerous examples, and you want to reject a demonstration of honest to goodness common ground because technically it doesn't represent compromise? Surely you see the absurdity.

#136 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:21 PM | Reply

"I want a renewed commitment to working within the democratic process."

Why isn't threatening to shut down the government working within the democratic process though?

JeffJ will tell you that Merrick Garland was handled via the democratic process, I think.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:23 PM | Reply

Common ground does not represent compromise.

It represents area where no compromise is needed.

You're trolling, right?

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:24 PM | Reply

does anyone know how this gun was obtained? legally?

#139 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-06-14 09:24 PM | Reply

Why isn't threatening to shut down the government working within the democratic process though?
JeffJ will tell you that Merrick Garland was handled via the democratic process, I think.

#137 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 09:23 PM | FLAG:

I think we are at cross purposes. I am concerned with violence. With giving up on the system altogether.

#140 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:25 PM | Reply

"I want a renewed commitment to working within the democratic process. Compromise is sometimes a part of that."

The very thing extremists and ideologues of all stripes are least likely to do. Compromise to them is a dirty word. Why, for example, was the GOP House health care plan so "mean"? Because conservative ideologies in the Freedom Caucus were unwilling to compromise. Moderation and moderates themselves are seen as political sell outs in this context.

#141 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-06-14 09:26 PM | Reply

Common ground does not represent compromise.
It represents area where no compromise is needed.

#138 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-06-14 09:24 PM | FLAG:

The matter at issue is whether the two parties can work together. Agreement (i.e. Common ground) is as good or better at demonstrating that possibility than compromise does. Are YOU trolling? You don't seem to be following the discussion very well.

#142 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:28 PM | Reply

Is, not does

#143 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:28 PM | Reply

Trump's notion of Winning! is not one that is amenable to compromise. In Trump world there must be winners and losers. In fact, one way winners know they are winners is because they have thoroughly bested the losers. Winning is not defined as building consensus and everybody getting a little of what they want.

#144 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-06-14 09:29 PM | Reply

does anyone know how this gun was obtained?

Probably a free prize in a box of cereal.

#145 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-06-14 09:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Dirk, what Gal said makes what you're saying seem kinda myopic and naive.

Surely there are things you won't compromise on, and surely that's good.

#146 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:31 PM | Reply

Really wish you would all read my posts before responding.
I am not saying there won't be conflict or that there shouldn't be. I am saying that conflict must not be allowed to break the system or step outside it into violence.

#147 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 09:34 PM | Reply

does anyone know how this gun was obtained? legally?

#139 | Posted by Maverick

Probably. Since the NRA has bribed republicans to allow any moron/wife beater/potential terrorist to buy a gun legally.

#148 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-14 09:34 PM | Reply

"HANS, but not true" - #135 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-06-14 09:19 PM

Just as true as yours.

Your turn.

(That was easy.)

#149 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-14 09:39 PM | Reply

"I am saying that conflict must not be allowed to break the system or step outside it into violence."

Well it's always the one party and never the other one that shuts down the government in my lifetime.

So, tell it to those guys.
I sense an implied false equivalency.

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-14 09:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yep, if a libbie does something like this the lefties turn to the gun first to downplay that it was one of their ilk the did the deed, whereas, had it been someone on the Right who shot a dem it would be about the person first and the guns on the back burner. Typical.

#151 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-06-14 09:56 PM | Reply

if a libbie does something like this the lefties turn to the gun first to downplay that it was one of their ilk the did the deed, whereas, had it been someone on the Right who shot a dem it would be about the person first and the guns on the back burner.

That's because the concept of generic lunatics with guns would be too complex of a problem with which to deal.

For instance, are not the "righties" making this shooting "about the person first and the guns on the back burner"?

#152 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-06-14 10:02 PM | Reply

"Well it's always the one party and never the other one that shuts down the government in my lifetime.
So, tell it to those guys."

And today one of yours shot a congressman and a bunch more had no better thing to say about it than that he had it coming. So I am telling you, them, and anyone else in earshot for good measure.

"I sense an implied false equivalency."

Then you need to get your senses tuned. People arguing about equivalency are part of the problem: yourself very much included. What good does it do?

#153 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-14 10:09 PM | Reply

Senator Rand Paul‏ @RandPaul

@Judgenap: Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!

9:48 AM - 23 Jun 2016

#154 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-06-14 10:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This should be a sobering moment for both the far left and alt-right, but given the rampant stupidity of both sides (as we see daily here on the DR) I am sure that the message will go right over their heads.

#2 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

I'm guessing I'll end up getting a three week vacation responding to some of the tripe on this topic. Multiple posters are showing how low they truly are with this one.

#155 | Posted by jpw at 2017-06-15 12:00 AM | Reply

Do not want to face the fact that once again a wacko libbie has 'left the reservation', no doubt driven over the line by the constantly spewed vitriolic attacks which dribble out of dem mouths [and their major media] in their hate filled rhetoric.

#68 | POSTED BY MSGT

Once again? When were the other times?

Oh and go f--- yourself.

#156 | Posted by jpw at 2017-06-15 12:07 AM | Reply

"Yep, if a libbie does something like this the lefties turn to the gun first to downplay that it was one of their ilk the did the deed"

Don't we always turn to the gun?

#157 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 02:46 AM | Reply

"And today one of yours shot a congressman and a bunch more had no better thing to say about it than that he had it coming"

One of mine?
What is that even supposed to mean?
Are you the guy who calls all Muslims terrorist because of 9/11 and ----?

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 02:49 AM | Reply

"Just have do blame the guns do you not?"

The numbers don't lie, MSgt.

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 02:57 AM | Reply

"I sense an implied false equivalency."
Then you need to get your senses tuned. People arguing about equivalency are part of the problem: yourself very much included. What good does it do?"

What do you mean "people arguing about equivalency."
I'm arguing one party is far more intransigent than the other.
You can sing Kumbaya at the Republicans all you want, but they won't even talk to you about your issue.

#160 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 03:05 AM | Reply

The message doesn't. The "Sentiment" here will make it difficult to swallow.

Mea Culpa.

The problem is too much vitriol for too many generations. Some of us have been on the receiving end since the Viet Nam War. That's a lot of emotional inertia to overcome. I confess to having a very short fuse with those who will now push the sleds of their political agendas greasing the skids with the blood of others.

But it will happen. Others will do it, I will do it, and others will fight back, being offended. Unfortunately these things will play out as they will. We must all prepare for that.

#161 | Posted by AWinter at 2017-06-15 08:27 AM | Reply

Since the NRA has bribed republicans to allow any moron/wife beater/potential terrorist to buy a gun legally.

#148 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 09:34 PM | FLAG:

"Potential terrorist". Back to thought crimes with no due process. You shouldn't be allowed to vote.

#162 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-06-15 08:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Potential terrorist". Back to thought crimes with no due process. You shouldn't be allowed to vote.

#162 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Its enough due process to keep them off a plane, but not from buying a gun huh?

#163 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 11:23 AM | Reply

Well he is not from my district but we take this as an attack on Louisiana voters from the anti Trump left.

#37 | POSTED BY TMASTER AT 2017-06-14 06:15 PM | FLAG:
Stop escalating.

#39 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

I know you mean well. I have read your posts. But they never will Stop.

There is much suffering in the world.

Some try and ignore it.

Some unintentionally make it worse.

Some intentionally make it worse.

Some breathe in the suffering and breathe out love.

I believe you are of the later persuasion. And we need more like me & you.

I have a bad feeling that it will get worse before it gets better.

So don't give up.

We will need to do a lot of breathing brother before this is over.

#164 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-06-15 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Potential terrorist". Back to thought crimes with no due process. You shouldn't be allowed to vote.
#162 | Posted by sitzkrieg
Its enough due process to keep them off a plane, but not from buying a gun huh?

#163 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You're cool with that?

I never had you pegged as someone who embraced the surveillance state.

#165 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-15 01:16 PM | Reply

I never had you pegged as someone who embraced the surveillance state.

#165 | Posted by JeffJ

I think the whole war on terror is fake. But I also think there are plenty of people who should not be allowed to have a gun, because the ability to purchase a killing device should require proof of a minimal intellectual/emotional/responsibiltiy capacity.

I'm sure the founding fathers didn't intend for us to have a nation of moronic lunatics running around with automatic weapons.

#166 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 01:20 PM | Reply

Its enough due process to keep them off a plane, but not from buying a gun huh?

#163 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-15 11:23 AM | FLAG:

It's not enough due process to do either. Hence the ACLU legal challenges.

If you're are for either, you should lose your right to vote, with no due process.

#167 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-06-15 01:42 PM | Reply

So don't give up.
We will need to do a lot of breathing brother before this is over.
#164 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2017-06-15 11:54 AM | FLAG:

Thank you for the sentiment. I don't plan to give up and hope that you won't either. "Be not overcome by evil but overcome evil by good" and all that.

#168 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-15 02:02 PM | Reply

If you're are for either, you should lose your right to vote, with no due process.

#167 | Posted by sitzkrieg

That's how I feel about trump supporters. If you're dumb enough to fall for an obvious lying con man, you should forfeit your right to vote for the next several election cycles. Maybe go take a civics/economics/history course or something.

#169 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 02:08 PM | Reply

Since the NRA has bribed republicans to allow any moron/wife beater/potential terrorist to buy a gun legally.
#148 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

When did the prohibition of the mentally ill (morons?) and domestic abuse offenders from possessing guns end?

Its enough due process to keep them off a plane, but not from buying a gun huh?
#163 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Uninformed, at best. www.aclu.org

#170 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-15 02:30 PM | Reply

When did the prohibition of the mentally ill (morons?) and domestic abuse offenders from possessing guns end?

#170 | Posted by et_al

www.thetrace.org

Why Domestic Abusers Often Get to Keep Their Guns
"Thirteen states -- including Louisiana, Kansas and New Mexico -- don't require law enforcement officials to take any action at all to remove guns from people prohibited from possessing them.

Even in states with seizure or relinquishment laws, enforcement is not guaranteed.

Federal law defines "domestic abuse" in a way that lets boyfriends and some other dating partners off the hook.

In 32 states, abusers can buy guns legally without a background check.

Just 11 states have passed laws to ban stalkers from gun possession."

#171 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 03:00 PM | Reply

That's how I feel about trump supporters. If you're dumb enough to fall for an obvious lying con man, you should forfeit your right to vote for the next several election cycles. Maybe go take a civics/economics/history course or something.

#169 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-15 02:08 PM

I was reading Hodgkinson's letters to the editor last night and you do realize that your comments throughout the thread sound like him, don't you?

#172 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-15 03:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LOL

At any given time, half the people here are telling the other half they need to edumacate themselves.

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 04:24 PM | Reply

Just 11 states have passed laws to ban stalkers from gun possession."

It would be better if the law said that those that were convicted of stalking and have a restraining order can be shot on sight by those that filed those protection requests if the stalker violates the distance with impunity.

#174 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-15 04:31 PM | Reply

One day after congressman is shot, NRATV commentator touts assault weapons as good protection from the government

BILL WHITTLE: I think, I personally think it is a mistake for people to say it's used for hunting, or it's used for target shooting. I have my AR-15 to kill people.

My weapons are here to defend me against my government. Ultimately, when its said and done, that's the main reason I have these weapons.

Media Matters

#175 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2017-06-15 05:59 PM | Reply

It would be better if the law said that those that were convicted of stalking and have a restraining order can be shot on sight by those that filed those protection requests if the stalker violates the distance with impunity.

#174 | Posted by Petrous

Yeah that's the kind of laws we need. Where citizens just start playing cop and executioner like Florida. What could go wrong dumbass?

#176 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 06:03 PM | Reply

My weapons are here to defend me against my government. Ultimately, when its said and done, that's the main reason I have these weapons.

Media Matters

#175 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar

That's exactly what this nut thought he was doing- Using his guns for the purposes gun ------- republicans say they're for: Resisting tyrannical government.

The NRA should be applauding their ideal member.

#177 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 06:04 PM | Reply

#15 | Posted by DirkStruan What part of "Don't shoot at people" did you not understand, with the exception, "unless they are a direct threat" and a reason, "they tend to shoot back." Bad thing about killing, it becomes a reason for more killing. What we have here is a policy dispute, not the seeds of a civil war. Hell, I don't disagree with any cause to remedy the injustice or ills that plague our society, I find it stupid that we try one thing by a central government purposes by fiat. It might be wise to try several.

#178 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-06-15 06:11 PM | Reply

#148 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-06-14 09:34 PM | FLAG:
"Potential terrorist". Back to thought crimes with no due process. You shouldn't be allowed to vote.
#162 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Well now I'm curious. Should this BernieBro have been allowed to own a gun or not?

Anyone feel free to chime in, but especially if you are a right-wing gun owner.

#179 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 06:20 PM | Reply

I wasn't clear on how you should respond, and since polls here never work:

Should Hodgkinson have been allowed to own guns?

Shoot your Congressman once for "Yes," twice for "No."

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 06:37 PM | Reply

Anyone else watching this baseball game?
I have to wonder if it's ever been televised live before.
I never even knew it existed until yesterday, and I used to live in D.C.

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 07:08 PM | Reply

Bigoted Homophobe Steve Scalise's Life Was Saved by a ----- Black Woman

fusion.kinja.com

OUch.

Doubt it changes his mind about blacks, gays, or guns.

Repubs don't really learn anything outside of church or fox news.

#182 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 08:50 PM | Reply

Can we not engage in policy or ethics discussion without wishing death on the other side?

#14 | Posted by DirkStruan
No the left cannot.

#183 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 08:57 PM | Reply

The left think banning guns will work better than Prohibition did.

#184 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 08:59 PM | Reply

Lighten up, Federalist.

They probably only think that because places like Australia average less than one gun murder a day and we average 25.

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 09:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#185 | Posted by snoofy
Why don't you compare their demographics.
Do they have a Chicago, Baltimore or a Philadelphia?
It is not just their gun laws that are different.

#186 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 09:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They have a more robust welfare state, which you also oppose, even though it reduces gun murders.

Is that the takeaway from your post Federalist?

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 09:16 PM | Reply

The left think banning guns will work better than Prohibition did.

#184 | Posted by Federalist

Mammals have a biological desire to seek intoxication. Prohibition went against human nature.

Mammals do not have a genetic desire to seek guns. Therefore gun bans work fine in countries without republicans.

If your dick is really that small, you can buy a big truck.

#188 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 09:26 PM | Reply

#187 | Posted by snoofy.

When we get this I may agree with you.
www.gizmodo.com.au

#189 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 09:31 PM | Reply

#188 | Posted by SpeakSoftly
Link?

#190 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 09:33 PM | Reply

If your dick is really that small, you can buy a big truck.

#188 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

That definitely took away from your post.

#191 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 09:36 PM | Reply

Link?

#190 | Posted by Federalist

Why do I feel like I'm teaching a child to use google?
www.australiangeographic.com.au

#192 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-15 09:41 PM | Reply

Mammals do not have a genetic desire to seek guns.
You have to start hanging out with mammals that have thumbs!
Your not Goat are you?

#193 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 09:45 PM | Reply

Waiting for your response to #189

#194 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 09:45 PM | Reply

" response to #189"

Haven't you seen enough of those in the "labs" of the states? Every one discovered the percentage "users" were lower among welfare recipients when compared to the general population.

Google Florida's experiment with this idea, if you'd like.

#195 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-15 09:58 PM | Reply

So, Federalist, the reason Australia has so much less gun murder isn't a gun ban.

It's because they drug test welfare recipients.

You must think drug Prohibition will work even better than alcohol prohibition! You kinda walked right into that one...

Do you know much about drug tests? All of the hard drugs are out of your system in about 72 hours so it's pretty easy to get past the test. The only one you'll have a hard time with is marijuana.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-15 10:14 PM | Reply

#196 | Posted by snoofy
No I don't do drugs.
Thanks for the info!

#197 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 10:38 PM | Reply

#195 | Posted by Danforth
I don't care about percentages of people not on welfare. That was not the point.
Try to keep on subject.

#198 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 10:40 PM | Reply

#196 | Posted by snoofy
You sound desperate.
War on drugs? Fail
War on poverty? Fail
War on guns? .........
Libs sure do like war.

#199 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 10:43 PM | Reply

"I don't care about percentages of people not on welfare."

Why? Are you afraid to admit what it means?

"That was not the point."

Disproving your theory never is.

#200 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-15 10:48 PM | Reply

So you are told people on welfare are tested for drugs in Australia and those in the U.S. are not and do not see the difference?

#201 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-06-15 10:51 PM | Reply

"those in the U.S. are not"

Please educate yourself. Some were, and it was an unmitigated failure. I referenced it before; the answer was a simple google search away:

thinkprogress.org

#202 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-15 10:56 PM | Reply

#187 | Posted by snoofy, That is just not true. Places with a "robust welfare state" have a much higher crime rate than some welfare poor state like Texas. Compare Dallas with Chicago or Houston with Baltimore. How about Austin with Philadelphia? Don't blame guns, seems the higher the gun restrictions are the higher gun violence is. Dallas is full of guns, literally more guns than people. And it has less than half the gun violence that Chicago does.

#203 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-06-16 10:45 AM | Reply

You sound desperate.
War on drugs? Fail
War on poverty? Fail
War on guns? .........
Libs sure do like war.

#199 | Posted by Federalist

Those things were labelled "wars" to get conservatives to care about them.

Otherwise the only thing they care about is their own taxes.

#204 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 01:08 PM | Reply

So you are told people on welfare are tested for drugs in Australia and those in the U.S. are not and do not see the difference?

#201 | Posted by Federalist

As the link showed, those tested in the US revealed they do less drugs than non-welfare recipients. So your argument that gun violence is the result of poor druggies is horsecrap.

Gun violence in the US is the result of guns being everywhere. If we're not going to take care of our crazy people, and we're going to saturate society with guns, then crazy people are going to shoot innocent victims.

Which side of that equation do republicans want to address? Guns or mental illness? The answer is NEITHER.

They're fine with the status quo of crazy people shooting innocents every few weeks, because that's what their masters in the NRA dictate.

#205 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 01:11 PM | Reply

Gun violence in the US is the result of guns being everywhere.

Social science on the subject is not so certain.

#206 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 02:09 PM | Reply

Social science on the subject is not so certain.

#206 | Posted by et_al

Do you need social science to tell you that a society without guns will have very few shootings?

#207 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 02:12 PM | Reply

Lets look at welfare vs violence.

Chicago isn't even in the top 20 for the most dangerous places in America.

The murder rate in Chicago is half the rate of St. Louis in Welfare poor Missouri.

The most generous state for welfare is Alaska.

There is no correlation between welfare and gun crime.

The place in America with the highest % of welfare is McCreary County Kentucky where over 50% of all the income in the county comes from government assistance.

The availability of guns is the leading corelating factor in gun violence. And Chicago's gun laws fail because some of the most lax gun laws in the country are a 10 minute drive outside the city

#208 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-06-16 02:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#207

Yes, I need more than the opinion of a zealot that "[g]un violence in the US is the result of guns being everywhere."

#209 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 02:35 PM | Reply

"Yes, I need more than the opinion of a zealot that "[g]un violence in the US is the result of guns being everywhere.""

Why wouldn't your mental comparisons between societies saturated with guns and those bereft of guns be enough?

#210 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-16 02:42 PM | Reply

Yes, I need more than the opinion of a zealot that "[g]un violence in the US is the result of guns being everywhere."

#209 | Posted by et_al

You probably also need proof that there are fewer car crashes in places with no cars, don't you?

I can't help someone of your apparent intellectual limitations.

#211 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 02:46 PM | Reply

Why wouldn't "the opinion of a zealot that "[g]un violence in the US is the result of guns being everywhere" be enough?

Because of the end game advocated by zealots based on that opinion. Comparisons with "other societies" is largely irrelevant.

#212 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 02:50 PM | Reply

#211

Thank you for proving beyond a doubt why the opinion of zealots is useless.

#213 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 02:53 PM | Reply

Thank you for proving beyond a doubt why the opinion of zealots is useless.

#213 | Posted by et_al

Zealot = human capable of logical thinking

#214 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 02:56 PM | Reply

#205 | Posted by SpeakSoftly Wrong, I actually worked in the mental health system when the patients from about 1000 institutions were dumped onto this nation's streets. That was under Carter's administration, under Democratic legislatures with the AOK from the progressives. News for you, some crazy people don't get better. Some people are marginally impaired and are unable to care for themselves. Many mental patients hate their medication and would not take them if it was up to them. At any time about 2% of this population have some form of schizophrenia, and a third of those need to be hospitalized because they are a threat to their own safety or others. That is about 2 million people. Then there are a host of other affections. OBS, mostly from injuries or drug overdose. Several conditions which which does not respond to drug therapy, sever depression, what we call bipolar now, we used to call manic depression, and third stage syphilis. We had bunches of patients and most needed asylum. We used to call psychiatric hospitals asylums, literally a place of refuge. Some people need to be taken care of because they can not care for themselves. But apparently reality does not trump the civil rights of an individual who eats from dumpsters and honestly believes he is Jesus Christ. Mental illness is generally not a threat to others. The mentally ill are generally much more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence. Yep, the old institutions were overcrowded, sometimes brutal and not a nice place to live.But at their worse, they were more merciful than an urban alley.

#215 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-06-16 02:58 PM | Reply

"Comparisons with "other societies" is largely irrelevant."

Why? Aren't we dealing with human nature at the core of all this?

FTW: I'm not in favor of banning guns, and am aware in some areas of the country it's an absolute requirement.

#216 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-16 03:00 PM | Reply

Yep, the old institutions were overcrowded, sometimes brutal and not a nice place to live.But at their worse, they were more merciful than an urban alley.

#215 | Posted by docnjo

What's your point?

It's the republican health care bill that will cut mental health coverage for millions of struggling people. Some of them are going to snap and kill people with the guns that are so easy to buy.

Crazy people + guns = death.

We can't get rid of crazy people, so what does that leave?

Societies without guns are factoring in that there are crazy people in their societies who would misuse guns, therefore it's not safe for guns to be available in that society.

#217 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 03:02 PM | Reply

"Comparisons with "other societies" is largely irrelevant."

Why? Aren't we dealing with human nature at the core of all this?

#216 | Posted by Danforth

Because those comparisons clearly prove that eliminating guns drastically reduces shootings.

If you can't argue against facts, then you have to say those facts don't count, because "america" or something.

#218 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 03:04 PM | Reply

"...when the patients from about 1000 institutions were dumped onto this nation's streets. That was under Carter's administration..." - #215 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-06-16 02:58 PM

When all else fails, lie:

What Reagan is not readily known for is the long term effect of a law he repealed (via the The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) that essentially deinstitutionalized mentally ill patients at the federal level.

source

Oops.

#219 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-16 03:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#219 | Posted by Hans, believe what you want, but I worked from 1977 to 1980, and I quit before Reagan became president. The big dump was well underway. Remember that law involved FEDERAL mental institutions. The vast majority of patients were emptied out of state institutions. As a mater of fact, what was the total number of Federal Mental Hospitals in 1979? and how many patients did that involve? That is how a lie passes for truth on this blog. The answer is, as far as I know, were three VA hospitals who were affected, with about 1500 patients. Compare that with the 750,000 that were removed from state institutions.

#220 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-06-16 03:31 PM | Reply

"believe what you want..." - #220 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-06-16 03:31 PM

Your "memory," or my sourced citation?

Tough choice. /snark

"The vast majority of patients were emptied out of state institutions."

Way to move the goal posts.

#221 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-16 03:34 PM | Reply

#214

Making up self serving definitions as a form of personal attack is further proof of why the opinion of zealots is useless and only deserving of being ignored as an outlier.

Zealot defined: A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. en.oxforddictionaries.com

#222 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 03:36 PM | Reply

Hans, did he move the goalposts or did you misunderstand him to mean only Federal mental institutions?

#223 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 03:36 PM | Reply

"...did he move the goalposts..." - #223 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 03:36 PM

"That was under Carter's administration..." - #215 | Posted by docnjo at 2017-06-16 02:58 PM
If he wasn't talking about Federal mental institutions, why the reference to the federal executive?

#224 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-16 03:42 PM | Reply

I'm not in favor of banning guns, and am aware in some areas of the country it's an absolute requirement.

This is "why." The endgame, the discussion always leads to the constitution, your comment invokes the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, which is something "other societies" don't have. Comparisons with them, while generally informative, are largely irrelevant when it comes to the end game.

#225 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 03:42 PM | Reply

"why the reference to the federal executive?"

Why not reference his entire sentence instead of just of it? He referenced legislatures as well.

I don't know if that's true or if Carter had anything to do with it.....but he wasn't narrowing his assertion to only Federal institutions.

It's obvious.....why are you chasing him? Is it your job to be butthurt on behalf of Jimmy Carter?

#226 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 03:46 PM | Reply

instead of just part of it.....sorry.

#227 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 03:46 PM | Reply

"He referenced legislatures as well." - #226 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 03:46 PM

Which had nothing to do with the Carter Administration.

Is it your job to excuse sloppy posting?

#228 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-16 03:51 PM | Reply

228

LOL....no, not even my own.

#229 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 03:53 PM | Reply

I'm not in favor of banning guns, and am aware in some areas of the country it's an absolute requirement.

This is "why." The endgame, the discussion always leads to the constitution, your comment invokes the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, which is something "other societies" don't have. Comparisons with them, while generally informative, are largely irrelevant when it comes to the end game.

#230 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 03:55 PM | Reply

#229 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 03:53 PM

A post which reinforces my overwhelmingly positive opinion of you, Eb.

Thanks.

#231 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-16 03:57 PM | Reply

Making up self serving definitions as a form of personal attack is further proof of why the opinion of zealots is useless and only deserving of being ignored as an outlier.

Zealot defined: A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. en.oxforddictionaries.com

#222 | Posted by et_al

Well that's not the way you're using the word. If someone presents facts that you can't argue against, you can just call them a zealot and run way claiming victory.

#232 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 03:57 PM | Reply

believe what you want, but I worked from 1977 to 1980, and I quit before Reagan became president.

#220 | Posted by docnjo

TODAY, it is the republican party who says "we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem." And then they present plans to cut mental health care.

You can't reconcile that kind of stupidity. Unless you don't really think shootings are a problem.

If they're a problem, then something must be done. If we can't restrict guns, we must treat the mentally ill. If you cut the funding to do that then your whole argument falls apart and we have to go back to restricting guns.

#233 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 04:00 PM | Reply

Here is a read on mental hospitals and their history.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Carter appeared to address this issue along with his wife.....did he do it right? I don't know..

"During Carter's term in office, the number of hospitalized patients fell by about 30 percent, and a large number of CMHCs were created"

rendering patients eligible for SSI, SSDI, food stamps, etc. allowed many of them to live in the community rather than in an institution.

I'm not coming down on anybody for how they handled mental illness but it appears that both Reagan and Carter "deinstitutionalized" mental patients and put formerly institutionalized patients out into society.......so...I'm not sure how you can slam Reagan for doing it unless you are going to accuse Carter of the same.......or vice-versa.

#234 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 04:07 PM | Reply

Republican's approach to caring for the mentally ill, as perfectly summarized by ITS ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA:
www.youtube.com

#235 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 04:07 PM | Reply

"You can't reconcile that kind of stupidity"

I'm not sure anybody is trying.

#236 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 04:08 PM | Reply

231

Thanks, Brother. Same to you!!

#237 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 04:08 PM | Reply

235

you probably believe that.

#238 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-16 04:10 PM | Reply

So, nobody who owns guns thinks this shooter should have been denied the opportunity to own a gun?

Glad we cleared that up.

Does anyone think he was using his gun appropriately against a tyrranical government?

I'm kind of on the fence on that one. Appropriate, no, but he certainly did attempt to bring about a political change.

#239 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-16 04:14 PM | Reply

I'm not sure anybody is trying.

#236 | Posted by eberly

Youre right. Repubs have given up trying to reconcile anything. It's way easier to just say FAKE NEWS when you get caught lying or presenting impossible/cruel policies.

#240 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 04:15 PM | Reply

"This is "why." The endgame, the discussion always leads to the constitution, your comment invokes the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, which is something "other societies" don't have."

The Second Amendment has a second word. (Hint: it's hyphenated) Why not start there?

#241 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-16 04:44 PM | Reply

"Does anyone think he was using his gun appropriately against a tyrranical government?"

Napolitano, and Rand Paul...at least until yesterday.

#242 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-16 04:53 PM | Reply

The Second Amendment has a second word. (Hint: it's hyphenated) Why not start there?

#241 | Posted by Danforth

If they can ignore the third word, then they can ignore the second one too.

#243 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 05:37 PM | Reply

If someone presents facts that you can't argue against, you can just call them a zealot and run way claiming victory.

You presented no facts. You presented an opinion at 205 and I presented a counter opinion at 206. I fail to see where I declared victory but your sentence just quoted can certainly be construed that way.

And I call you a zealot because, from reading many of your posts, you fit the definition to a T.

#244 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 06:56 PM | Reply

The Second Amendment has a second word. (Hint: it's hyphenated)

I find no hyphenated word in the official transcript. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

Perhaps this is what you are referring to, "The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
See also https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2016-10-3.pdf
Further, the Court found that the phrase "well regulated Militia" referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of "able-bodied men" who were available for conscription. 15

#245 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-16 07:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You presented no facts. You presented an opinion at 205 and I presented a counter opinion at 206. I fail to see where I declared victory but your sentence just quoted can certainly be construed that way.

And I call you a zealot because, from reading many of your posts, you fit the definition to a T.

#244 | Posted by et_al

Everything in 205 IS a fact.

You called me a zealot because you can't argue against it.

Good technique though. I'll try to remember to use it next time I find myself in an indefensible position.

#246 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-16 07:30 PM | Reply

#245

Okay, "well regulated".

I'll return to my prior point: why wouldn't the THIRD word be operative? We already regulate particular arms: my right to own surface-to-air missiles is definitely infringed.

Why wouldn't the salient question simply be where to redraw the regulatory line?

#247 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-16 07:39 PM | Reply

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

But it doesn't refer to an individual? A mentally ill person can still bear arms, yes?

What then does it mean that the Second confers an individual right as on Heller? Does well regulated not encumber that individual right?

Does the phrase well regulated or well regulated militia have any impact on the meaning of the law? Would the Second mean the same thing if those words were omitted?

#248 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-16 08:55 PM | Reply

Everything in 205 IS a fact.

You're making up definitions again. Opinion is not fact. The argument against your opinion is my counter opinion.

And thanks for more evidence of your zealotry, uncompromising fanaticism. Your inability to acknowledge the difference between fact and opinion.

But then, if there is empirical data showing social science on the subject, "gun violence in the US is the result of guns being everywhere," is certain, so be it. Can you present it?

#249 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-17 01:28 AM | Reply

Why wouldn't the salient question simply be where to redraw the regulatory line?

That is the question. Has been since '08. The latest since then is up now. Will they take it?

#250 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-17 01:50 AM | Reply

Everything in 205 IS a fact.

"You're making up definitions again."

How so? In #205, the following claims are made:

1. Drug testing of welfare recipients showed a lower-than-average usage rate.
That's true.

2. More guns directly correlate to more gun violence.
Fairly obvious, when we compare America to the countries most America-like (Canada, England, Australia)

3. Less mental health care + easier gun access = more gun incidents.
Macrostatistics proves as much.

4. Rs haven't addressed either part of the above equation, and aren't willing.
Pretty obvious.

Where is the opinion?

#251 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-17 02:12 AM | Reply

Where is the opinion?

Start with 206.

#252 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-17 03:16 AM | Reply

"Start with 206."

You referenced 205.

#253 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-17 03:21 AM | Reply

#251 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
"Where is the opinion?"

Gun violence in the US is the result of guns being everywhere.

#254 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-06-17 06:27 AM | Reply

You referenced 205.

I quoted from 206.

#255 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-17 12:12 PM | Reply

"I quoted from 206."

You referred to 205, more than once: "You presented no facts. You presented an opinion at 205 "

I responded, point-by-point, how 205 contained facts.

That said, I'll agree 206 is an opinion.

#256 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-17 12:22 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort