Congresswoman Giffords, Others Shot/Killed in Arizona

[stjr]

LOL.  I knew the guy had that "familiar" look.  After $75 million in TV propaganda commercials and your assist, Ock, I now know why.  They also have in common that they are equally disconnected from reality and that whatever they say, no one can make any sense out of it! 

[simms3]

I don't know why people are still speculating he was a Tea Partier.  He was neither right nor left.  He was simply a deranged, mentally unstable stalker who had been stalking this woman for a while and he clearly needed help.  Unfortunately there are too many people like him in the world.  Our brain is so complex and so easily messed up in many ways we still barely even understand and anyone can lose it at some point.  We used to have insane asylums and psychiatric clinics for people who were a danger to themselves and to other people, but the PC crowd helped to put an end to them (for the most part).

This guy simply just didn't need to be walking around with the general public, and nobody needs a semi-automatic with an oversized 31 round magazine/clip.  This whole issue is literally not about politics.

We need our 2nd amendment, but we don't need free range to buy military grade weapons.  A simply handgun for concealed carry (which by the way has stopped many of these horrible attacks when police weren't around) and a shotgun/rifle for hunting will do, with licenses and background checks.

We also need pyschiatric wards, kind of like nursing homes, for these kind of people.  Many of them do not have family who will pay to put them up in a nice place, so we need taxpayer funded mental clinics/hospitals.  How many times a year do we have to hear about some similar tragedy only to find out the person has been mentally unstable and unbalanced for at least a while if not his/her whole life?  And let's not even mention how many serial rapists are mentally ill, yet all we do is lock them up for a little while and then release them only to have the same thing happen over and over and over again.

I just found out that even MARTA girl in Atlanta was mentally unstable and that she was very embarassed that she went off like that and that it was filmed.  She is now in one of our few mental institutions and apparently doing much better.  Heck, sometimes even I think I'm going mental, haven't we all?  Just imagine all the people out there who need help, and 50 years ago would have been able to receive it (albeit with occasional unscrupulous places), but now they are largely gone.

If we had better laws and better/more mental institutions where people would stay, then this guy would never have killed all these people and he wouldn't now be facing actual prison time for the rest of his life.  Those who knew him knew he was a wacko and that he was sick.  A mental clinic is better than a prison, although the PC crowd will tell you otherwise.  How many countless other people are out there just like him waiting go ballistic?

[NotNow]

Agreed that we need to address the mental health/hospitalization issue.  But I disagree with you on the second amendment issue.  The 2nd is not about hunting.  It is about the people retaining arms, to be used at the threat of tyranny if need be as well as protection of one's self and family.  ALL of the framers of the U S Constitution advocated private ownership of firearms.  There is no question in my mind that the private ownership of semi auto hi capacity magazine weapons is a natural right, and supported by the second amendment.

[simms3]

I agree with Stephen on where I think he is going with this.  Clearly the Founding Fathers framed our country so that the government would never and could never become oppressive over the people, and an armed militia populace was one of the safeguards against that.  I don't think the Founding Fathers imagined a society in which people such as this mentally ill guy with a history could get their hands on a weapon that could fire 31 times without reloading (and basically just re-pulling the trigger, if that).

In today's world, I don't think we have an imminent threat of the government/military taking complete dictatorial control, so when I think of the 2nd Amendment, I just want to be able to have concealed carry or at least a handgun in my house for protection, and I want to be able to own shotguns for trap shooting and hunting.  Take these away from me and I'm pretty unhappy!    Also, our military population is pretty Conservative, socially and fiscally.  They aren't going to take over this country.  They are red-blooded all American types and fresh immigrants who came to this country for freedoms and the chance to make it for their family.  A coup is not on their mind and they surely do not support huge, restricting government (I mean I wonder how many of our military left their countries precisely for that reason?).

[ChriswUfGator]

Well let's be honest, the military is so technologically advanced that nothing we could develop or obtain as civilians would mount any resistance to it whatsoever. Some guy a thousand miles away can literally push a button and blow me up at this point. Accordingly, the only thing our adherence to the second amendment is accomplishing is enabling these type of violent mass murders. Small arms wouldn't provide any resistance to government oppression, it just lets people shoot each other. The second amendment is a classic example of what happens with you interpret an old document so illogically literally that it can't keep up with changing times. When it was written, a soldier with a gun was no better prepared than a citizen with a gun, technology has changed all that.

[ChriswUfGator]

And full disclosure, I'm a gun owner and CWP holder, and I still feel this way about the asinine arguments claiming that the second amendment is the one and only portion of the constitution that is never subject to any temporal interpretation or analysis in light of the framers' intent. The intent was plainly as a backstop against government oppression, and small arms no longer serve that purpose because of advanced military technology. The sole and singular purpose of the amendment has been nullified by the progression of time.

[Captain Zissou]

get their hands on a weapon that could fire 31 times without reloading (and basically just re-pulling the trigger, if that).

What I don't understand is, Why make this gun in the first place?? Are you going to use it for hunting? No!  Is there any sort of sport environment that would require you to shoot 31 targets? NO!  Is there any reason other than violence that would make this gun necessary? NO!!!

When the 2nd amendment was written, I also think the founding fathers thought that you could conceal a gun in your pocket that could potentially kill 30+ people in less than a minute.

[Ralph W]

Watch the movie, "Red Dawn", and you'll realize how archaic the idea of civilians resisting any government oppression would be. "Resistance is Futile".

[Dog Walker]

Also don't forget that there was no standing army of any size in the US at the time the amendment was written, that there were hostile Native Americans in a lot of the woods and an outnumbered white population in the South that feared slave rebellion.  Militias were literally seen as the first line of defense.

"Well regulated" at the time also did not mean following a bunch of written rules, but well drilled in marching and shooting as a group.

[Ralph W]

That's the one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn

Although the story line is larger, my premise is still sound. Civilians do not stand a snowballs chance when confronting government - any government - and their arsenal and training.

[ChriswUfGator]

Watch the movie, "Red Dawn", and you'll realize how archaic the idea of civilians resisting any government oppression would be. "Resistance is Futile".

Isnt Red Dawn about a Cuban advance of a Soviet Invasion?

Starring Patrick Swayze?

I think the ending of that movie was when the soviet union collapsed after invading Afghanistan for 7 years while trying to be an international badass by spending all of its money on the military rather than the people?

Lol you'd think we would have learned something from the Russians but I guess it's easier to spend several trillion invading the same unconquerable countries than to spend $20 on a history book. Well I suppose we'd have had to spend $199 on Hooked-on-Phonics for our president at the time, too. So he could read the history book.

[Shwaz]

IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen. Was it easy for this deranged maniac to purchase his weapons? Yes... but probably just as easy as assembling a pipe bomb. He was somewhat educated and obviously motivated.

[Shwaz]

IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen. Was it easy for this deranged maniac to purchase his weapons? Yes... but probably just as easy as assembling a pipe bomb. He was somewhat educated and obviously motivated.

Except that if he used a pipe bomb, it would have been a pipe bombing, and not an event like this.

For the record, he also didnt use a dirty nuke, an exploding cigar, or poison the water supply.

So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again... unless one can harness enriched uranium or poison the well?

[ChriswUfGator]

IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen. Was it easy for this deranged maniac to purchase his weapons? Yes... but probably just as easy as assembling a pipe bomb. He was somewhat educated and obviously motivated.

They do sweeps for pipe bombs and whatnot at these types of events, the danger would be much lower without someone's ability to come in personally and shoot the place up. This is why terrorism is so effective, you can nullify the threats from bombs and whatnot with searches and detectors, but when a physical person decides that killing you is more important to him than his own safety, his own life, or any consequences if he gets caught, then once someone repudiates their own logical self interests like that there's really very little our society can do about it.

Our law enforcement techniques are all developed around rational self interest, and when someone isn't acting rationally anything can happen. You could literally just walk up shoot the president, or in this case a congressman, if you just didn't care at all about what happened to you. Thankfully 99.999999% of people do care what happens to their own life or safety and that's what keeps things safe in our system. But bombs and whatnot aren't the same kind of threat, because you can sweep for those. How do you sweep for total insanity?

[Ralph W]

That's the one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn

Although the story line is larger, my premise is still sound. Civilians do not stand a snowballs chance when confronting government - any government - and their arsenal and training.

It was one of my favorite movies as a kid, actually.

I don't know about that.  Governing an occupied land is a pretty difficult task even when the people like you.  The Civilians seem to be holding out pretty well in Afghanistan against a military whose capabilities were literally science fiction at the time that Red Dawn was made.

Read "Charlie Wilson's War" regarding Afganistan in the early '80's. If the narrative is even close to factual then our very own Uncle Sam's CIA funded and trained the Afgans, helping drive out the Russians. The "Freedom Fighters" were nothing but cannon fodder until  "government" with clout and weapons stepped up to the plate.