• If they can close the cracks regarding gun sales at shows I would not be against sales at gun shows. It seems this has been one place sales are not as well regulated. People who would not be able to get a gun otherwise might get one at a gun show.

    I don't know much about how our laws have limited gun ownership by the non criminal but I know there have been some abuses of "enforcement".

    January 16, 2011 at 9:14 p.m.

  • The simple truth here is that the government in an effort to save money no longer pays for mental health care for those who really need it. The mentally ill fall through the cracks and get little or no help.

    Hippa laws forbid the use of medical records by gov,t and private sector for any reason other than in treatment of medical problems and billing for those treatments. Any other use is an invasion of one's right to privacy. By allowing these records to be used for any other reason would open us all up to improper use of these records to control what we can legally do or legally own.

    Our rights as law abiding citizens to own and carry guns have already been for the most part taken away from us with the many gun laws on the books now. More new gun laws will never solve this problem or make us any safer. In fact just the opposite is true. in those states with the strictest gun laws in place the crime rates involving guns are much higher than in the states with out such laws and prevents law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegal gun toting criminals.


    we do not need more gun laws just better enforcement of the laws we already have and or the elimination of some laws allowing us to protect ourselves against illegal gun owners.

    The so-called wild west where everyone carried guns was no where near as wild as the streets of any modern city with a gang problem or high poverty rate or high drug abuse problem.

    Blaming guns for the crimes committed with them is like blaming money for all the crimes committed by people to get that money illegally.

    Lets get back to reality and put the blame back on the person who commits the crime where it belongs not on the gun used in that crime and if that person is found to be mentally Ill get them the help needed to treat that illness instead of using jails to keep them under control.

    January 16, 2011 at 7:26 p.m.

  • TheWWW,

    I understand what you are saying, but with the growth in population, things will have to change one way or another.
    I do know there are a lot of larger clips that are already out there, but those buying guns for a evil purpose now, and as a last minute thought, could be stopped from getting one now.
    Gun shows should be monitored more closely.

    January 16, 2011 at 11:13 a.m.

  • Mike..."The other day I heard that the United States leads the entire world in political assassinations."

    Gee, Mike, where did you hear that? When was the last time the US suffered a political assassination? I'm the first to admit you are much more in tune with politics than I. I don't like politics and consider them a necessary evil. So, it's possible I missed something, but I don't remember a political assassination in a long time. Leading the world in assassinations? Sorry, I don't buy that at all and would need to see some proof.

    I don't believe this attempt was politically motivated. I believe the guy was (is) crazy and he picked a high profile target for the boost it would give him in his own twisted mind. The judge isn't political; he didn't have to worry about being re-elected. Certainly the kid wasn't political.

    January 16, 2011 at 10:59 a.m.

  • Born...Yeah, I knew what you meant. I was just yanking your chain a little about the jets and tanks. You were using hyperbole and I sorta responded in kind.

    As far as the number of rounds in a magazine is concerned, we already limit the number in a shotgun for waterfowl hunting. The same could be done for handguns, I suppose. Limit clip capacity to six for civilian purchases. Remember, though, there are already hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of larger capacity magaznes for guns already in people's hands. I was always taught that when defending yourself, the most important shot you can make is the FIRST one and that if you haven't ended the fight by the time you empty the magazine or cylinder, you're probably better off running away.

    Your comment about gun shows intrigues me. Which guns would you ban from sale at gun shows? Would they remain legal for sale a sporting goods stores? Instead of banning guns because of the way they look, wouldn't it make more sense to require that people selling more than one gun at gun shows possess a federal license to sell firearms? I would support the requirement of an individual who decides to sell his old Colt to register the sale with the local police or District Attorney's office. That way the seller, the buyer, the serial number and model and caliber of the gun will be in the database. I would have no problem with requireing a potential buyer to have to undergo the same background check when buying from an individual as when buying new from a gun shop.

    I don't agree with you that certain guns should not be sold. I do, however, agree that there are certain PEOPLE who should not be able to purchase them legally. Of course, there are certain people who shouldn't be able to purchase a baseball bat.

    January 16, 2011 at 10:38 a.m.

  • You know, there is something we need to think about that Mike brought up in his blog. He mentioned that the house will be afraid to cross the NRA so we won't get any discussion regarding gun ownership. I think he has a point. But this fear is not limited to Republicans and the NRA. Pressure from trial lawyers is the reason we didn't see any tort reform in the health care bill and we could probably list plenty more examples where pressure on Washington goes above what it good for the people. When we talk about change in Washington, this is probably a really good place to start.

    January 16, 2011 at 8:16 a.m.

  • I think you know what I mean.. You proved my point to some extent. When I was talking about the tanks, of course I was talking about the guns on the tanks and not the actual tanks. Same with the fighter jets. It's the firepower I was talking about and I think you know that.
    We have guns for protection and hunting. If you need that many shots to kill an animal, lets just say you aren't doing it right. If you need that many shots to protect yourself, then you are a really bad shot and a danger to anyone within a hundred yards of you.
    There should be limits on the amount of bullets in clips. It should be illegal for certain guns to be sold at gun shows.

    January 15, 2011 at 11:53 p.m.

  • Born...Actually, private citizens CAN own fighter planes. Go to some of the larger air shows around the country and you're liable to see some of them. Tanks are also legal for private onwership, but the equipment that makes them viable weapons must be removed or rendered inoperable. You can have the tank, but the 75 to 90mm gun cannot be in firing condition. Have you heard of an epidemic of crimes committed by people flying F-86 jet fighters or driving M-4 Sherman tanks?

    When you say people shouldn't be allowed to own an "assault weapon" I wonder if you're referring to a real one or a look-alike wannabe. Very few people own a real assault weapon -- M-16s and AK-47s which are capable of fully automatic fire, use detachable box magazines and have bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. Of course, there is the always popular Thompson submachine gun -- the famous "Tommy Gun." People who own such weapons must pass rather rigorous background checks and the permits for them are quite expensive. As a consequence, people who own them tend to be very law abiding and not threats to the public. How many crimes have you heard of being committed in the US by people using real assault weapons? While their use is popular in movies, real life is quite different.

    I've known one person who owned a fully automatic weapon. It was a WWII era M-2 carbine that he managed to bring home from the war. Gee, somehow, he never killed anybody with it. I suppose there was some character flaw because even though he had a real machine gun, he NEVER committed murder. Heck, he never even used it to protect his home from criminals.

    What most people refer to as assault rifles aren't. They're just semi-automatics that have the LOOK of an assault rifle. The Glock pistol used by the killer in Arizona certainly isn't an assault weapon. Why would you ban something because of the way it looks? They don't shoot any faster than any other semi-automatic rifle; one shot for each pull of the trigger and they are actually LESS powerful than most hunting type rifles. The M-16 military assault rifle and the AR-15 civilian look-alike both use the .223 cartridge which is much less potent than the .24 to .30 caliber cartridges of most hunting rifles.

    January 15, 2011 at 11:34 p.m.

  • I see no reason for the average person to own an assault weapon. NONE! Citizens cannot own tanks, or fighter jets, or any of the other weapons of semi- mass destruction, so why should they be able to own assault weapons.
    Gun activist who think otherwise must be lacking in some area of their lives because they have that "mine must be bigger and badder than yours" syndrome.

    January 15, 2011 at 10:05 p.m.

  • People should always be allowed to own guns to defend themselves, our Constitution protects that. However, when that amendment was added, I don't think we had the assault weapons and extender clips, etc. People did not live in cities where there were policemen, and some of them had to hunt for food. Being out in the country, miles from civilization except for horseback, and no telephone to call 911, people had to work things out themselves. Things are different today. Limiting some of the weapons and ammo without taking away the right to protect one's self is one option.

    Certain people should not be allowed to buy guns, especially at gun shows. I am not the one to describe where to draw the line, but some restrictions should be put on certain classes of people based on dx of mental illness with tendency to violence, and people who have broken certain laws in the past. We do this to some extent, but it needs to be worked on. This is another place to start.

    This situation could have been prevented. Not long ago, a teacher expressed concern for strange behavior in this person, a school took action and even talked to parents, the police department had some indication that he might have been a threat, and that very morning, his own father had the opportunity to call someone to say that he was up to something. One Wal Mart was concerned enough to refuse to sell him ammo, the other let him slide. He had already gotten into a small confrontation regarding the line at the crime scene. If there had been more communication with just a few of the above, this tragedy could have been prevented. Communication is one way this type of thing could be prevented.

    I am in favor of looking at options for making our citizens safe.

    January 15, 2011 at 8:25 p.m.

  • Thanks counttx

    Excellent post because it applies to what actual happened.

    January 15, 2011 at 11:58 a.m.

  • Thanks pythagoras
    Great advice,insight, and answers.

    January 15, 2011 at 11:54 a.m.

  • JBJ.

    And you are welcome.

    January 15, 2011 at 7:49 a.m.

  • When I said to use the National Guard and the Air National guard to help protect Congressmen in public event. I do not mean having air strikes or bombs. This is what I mean. Since the two branches are training and are “weekend” warriors, it would be cost effective to have at least two to four guardsmen in plain clothes or in uniform guarding our Representatives and Senators.

    January 15, 2011 at 7:34 a.m.

  • Welcome to the 150th anniverary of the War Between the States.
    Please remember:

    January 15, 2011 at 7:12 a.m.

  • Very interesting Blog, as usual. I certainly feel for the Congresswoman and her family and my heart and prayers go out to them.

    This raises a lot of questions that I think there are answers too that neither side wants to listen to. I would suggest starting with a few books that might give you a better understanding of why people kill. The first is "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by LTC (RET) Dave Grossman. Very interesting insight into the subject of this blog. Start there and if you find that your questions still are not answered I would suggest "On Combat:The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace" by the same author.

    Might answer some of your questions.

    I would like to answer at least one question though.
    The answer is:
    Education and training, values that support your roles, fewer lawyers, fewer politicians and more real leadership, turning off the media. Apply liberally in moderation over infected area. If infection persist immediately pay too much to see a Doctor or bug the Government until they pay.

    There is truth in most levity.

    January 15, 2011 at 12:02 a.m.

  • where is this concern when all the hate is/was focused on gw bush and palin ?

    January 14, 2011 at 10:51 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 14, 2011 at 10:30 p.m.

  • Not excuses, just the truth and nothing but.

    January 14, 2011 at 10:20 p.m.

  • I asked for some examples of hate talk by the right, and thank you for providing them, writein. Thank you, also, rollinstone, for your clarification.

    January 14, 2011 at 9:57 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 14, 2011 at 9:36 p.m.

  • Rollenston.

    Seems like you are making excuses.

    1) I am aware that Peterson said it on hannity, but I was refering to his comments on Glenn Beck's show. My point is that he is a Uncle tom and a radio talk show host.

    5) It took the Tea Party Express months to kick him out.

    January 14, 2011 at 8:46 p.m.

  • For the record a few "minor" corrections..........................

    1) “All Blacks are racist” - The Uncle Tom Rev. Jesse L Patterson , the Glenn Beck Show Spring 2009.

    .........His name is Peterson not Patterson and he said it on Hannity not Beck's show and lastly he's an African American.....what's your point????

    2) I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?”
    - Glenn Beck, May 17, 2005.

    .......It was a stupid thing to say.

    Glenn Beck, responding to the question ‘What would people do for $50 million?’, ‘The Glenn Beck Program,’ May 17, 2005

    3) “I think this is probably a more likely scenario that the president is under fire and we know that a radicalized socialist is a label that is going to be attached to this president and so we want to show you that a radicalized socialist is Martin Luther King and it’s okay.” - - Glenn Beck, January 19, 2009.

    ........Beck was commenting on the statement by Julian Bond and speculating on why he said it.

    "Julian Bond, the head of the NAACP, made some comments recently on the legacy of one of the greatest Americans to have ever lived, Martin Luther King. Yet instead of praising him properly on the day we celebrate his efforts to improve our nation, he decided to play politics with the greatest hero of the civil rights movement.

    Bond was quoted as saying: "we celebrate a man that is different than the one that existed, and perhaps that is why he is so celebrated." He was making the claim that King was a socialist, and that he is only celebrated the way he is because few people know his true political leanings."

    4) “The only role race plays in this is that the American black population has been the prototype for an entire race of people being, being turned into a group of dependents of the government--trapped there, I'm using that word very loosely are screaming we want help, we want help.” - Mark Williams, 2005

    5) “The President is an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief.
    - Mark Williams (Tea Party Express), September 14, 2010.

    .........Mark Williams was kicked out of the Tea Party for his racist comments.

    6) “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” - Rush Limbaugh, 2008.

    .........Limbaugh said this in the 1970's not 2008 while working under the name of Jeff Christie he later expressed remorse for saying that.

    January 14, 2011 at 7:50 p.m.

  • Hicktoria,

    Oh??? Do you have a crystal ball? If so tell me tomorrow’s lottery numbers.

    January 14, 2011 at 6:35 p.m.

  • JBJ.

    I guess you do not listen to 1200 AM WOAI, Michael Savage, the so-called Rev. Jesse L Peterson, and the like.

    All of the quotes I posted are NOT from some liberal/progressive site website. That’s why I watch Fox News and listen to HATE TALK RADIO, so I can know thy enemy.

    1) “All Blacks are racist” - The Uncle Tom Rev. Jesse L Patterson , the Glenn Beck Show Spring 2009.

    2) I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?”
    - Glenn Beck, May 17, 2005.

    3) “I think this is probably a more likely scenario that the president is under fire and we know that a radicalized socialist is a label that is going to be attached to this president and so we want to show you that a radicalized socialist is Martin Luther King and it’s okay.” - - Glenn Beck, January 19, 2009.

    4) “The only role race plays in this is that the American black population has been the prototype for an entire race of people being, being turned into a group of dependents of the government--trapped there, I'm using that word very loosely are screaming we want help, we want help.” - Mark Williams, 2005

    5) “The President is an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief.
    - Mark Williams (Tea Party Express), September 14, 2010.

    6) “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” - Rush Limbaugh, 2008.

    January 14, 2011 at 6:26 p.m.

  • John

    Now that I agree with.....I'm too old or too foolish to live in fear.
    I've lived this long without wearing a couple of banderilleros(except for 3 yrs) and armed to the teeth,so the rest of my journey is just icing on the cake.

    Sorry for misinterpreting your post...

    Have a good weekend

    January 14, 2011 at 5:09 p.m.

  • LOL!

    I was not necessarily referring to what politicians are saying in the “public“, because frankly I don’t watch political talk shows all that much.

    Obviously, I’m not speaking as to what “all” politicians are saying, but I can honestly speak on what some are saying; at least to a certain extent. Allow me too keep something’s private, not for my benefit but that of others who have placed their trust in me.

    The truth, to which I am referring are the events that have occurred. It should be obvious by now that if a person is willing to die, too kill someone that there is very little, that can be done to stop it.

    That is truth. The lies, are the reassurances that people create in their minds because they can not rise above their fear without doing so.

    It’s a lie, because nothing has really changed from the perspective of the person willing to kill, just the person unwilling to live knowing that someone is capable of such a heinous act.

    The world is really a dangerous place, but it doesn’t mean you have to live in fear, it’s called courage. Too embrace fallacies, is to deny yourself courage in facing the world as it truly is.

    January 14, 2011 at 4:54 p.m.

  • John Lara
    Congress is not really in session,and the only ones that are relatively silent on this issue are the politicians.

    You said "For once, lets all just go on with our lives accepting the truth, without fear. ...We have about 308 million people;who decides what the truth is?Like I told Hictoria,there is more than one voice.

    Am I missing something?

    January 14, 2011 at 4:34 p.m.

  • Lol..Conservatives like yourself dismiss the opposition, as if no one ever votes for the them because you are in the chosen party.

    President Obama is surging in the polls after the lame duck legislative victories..As high as 53% in one poll and ~ 48-49% in others...Obama trounces all the potential GOP contenders...My advice: get some candidates that stand a chance.

    I love overconfident people..Makes the victory sweeter.:-)

    Have a good weekend

    January 14, 2011 at 4:27 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 14, 2011 at 4:25 p.m.

  • "It is my hope and a prayer that a "Second Era of Good Feelings" is coming back to America with the President's speech."

    This will happen when he is booted out of office in 2012. You will see a massive "good feeling" all across the country.

    January 14, 2011 at 3:51 p.m.

  • Rebecca this thread has meandered between gun control, insanity, air strike missions, free speech, Nazis, political rhetoric, talk radio, Socialist, political assassins and some things I have no idea WTH they meant.

    It's been a wild ride and quite a party. Now everyone is kinda hungover. Sun is coming up and everyone is starting to stagger home to sleep it off. I hope we can at least agree on this......we'll clean up the mess later.

    January 14, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.

  • jbj

    It's quite obvious that we are 180° apart, but I'm not as dumb what you're trying to make me out to be. We hang out in different circles, so the historical significance of what happened in the 1960s and today is very different. You don't buy it, so it's time to peacefully move on.

    I'm really not interested in what Fox News thinks is important, so that's why I chose to ignore your request...... I'm one that likes to stay on the topic that is why I delete some posters comments. They consistently try to change the subject to what they want to discuss. That's the reason I've pulled the last blog. You said, I delete comments because they don't agree with my view, but you can't back that up with facts. In the first place, only the author knows the reason for deletion. I do have a self- imposed "hog law", whereas after a couple of days, discuss anything under the sun without fear of deletion. Is it really that selfish or unreasonable to want the comments to be about the subject that took me about three hours to research and write?

    Kevin Jennings is the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education.He is a not a czar.... What I think about him is germane to the topic at hand. In your mind, it may be important, but we are 180° apart. Obviously it's something you are interested in,why don't you blog about it. Then you can discuss the subject with those who care..:-)

    January 14, 2011 at 3:23 p.m.

  • Often times this forum reminds me of an excitable fella I used to work with.

    Shamefully. We used to have fun setting him off; he was gullible but harmless.... I remember one day we told him "we MIGHT NOT get our checks this week." He started ripping and roaring and never noticed that we were laughing. He never heard the word "might not" and he never assumed we were just pulling his leg, again. We fessed up when he said he was going to personnel and give them a piece of his mind. He wasn't much on “trust but verify" or "fool me once."

    January 14, 2011 at 2:49 p.m.

  • TWW, did someone say that government should control our speech? I thought it was suggested that we do that ourselves, because we are responsible. When I have ideas or concerns it doesn't mean that I want the government to do something about it. I have that power and that choice.

    (I am having a hard time following the thread because it's getting confusing and I can't tell who is referencing what. I still don't know exaclty what it is that Rollin and I disagree on.)

    January 14, 2011 at 2:38 p.m.

  • It never ceases to amaze me how someone can take 40 words or less in turn it into a case for more guns, an excuse to be obnoxious, or for some more hyperbole.

    I consider myself a consumer of useless knowledge that I probably will never need... I like information, so I just thought I would pass on what an FBI profiler said. A statement from Time Magazine is worth repeating" anything worth stating is worth overstating."... The profiler never said that we should watch our P's & Q's, but I assume from their case files, they have learned that negative voices may trigger those inflected with the terrible condition, into action. I don't see why that little bitty information should stir any reaction. Haven't you ever been involved in a " think tank" group at work where everybody throws out bits of information and then methodically accept what is the best of the lot? Are we at the point where problem solving means " sweep it under the rug" because someone will be offended?

    I'm just a lowly poster that doesn't know the first thing about schizophrenia, its causes or the pain it causes. I'm just reading what I can and sharing the latest info. Perhaps that's wrong.

    January 14, 2011 at 2:11 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 14, 2011 at 1:34 p.m.

  • Mike..."An FBI profiler told Chris Matthews that a schizophrenic's brain is fertile ground for negative voices and a word or two about polishing your gun to take out the enemy, can take the schizophrenic over the edge."

    So, those of us who disagree with government policies should just hold our tongues on the off chance that some nut will take our words and twist them into a murderous rage? I'm thinkin' that ain't gonna happen. Maybe the trigger phrase would be something like "Do you want fries with that?" instead of something like "Obama is a socialist." I certainly read of more shootings at fast food outlets than at political ralleys. There is no way of knowing in advance what will send a nut over the edge or even if the trigger is something in his messed up head; ie, Son of Sam who had dogs telling him whom to kill. One big problem is gonna be the lack of care for those who really are 'round the bend. As the economy worsens, there will be fewer state funded clinics and hospitals where the looney can be confined and treated. They'll be wandering around among regular people. It could get to the point where going to the extent of obtaining a concealed carry license and a good handgun (not a pink one) will be necessary just to protect ourselves from the nut cases.

    January 14, 2011 at 1:29 p.m.

  • Mike, you commented that the vitrol from the left was in the 60's and 70's. I thought you might be interested to know it is still around.

    You didn't comment on the safe school czar. Makes one want to home school.

    January 14, 2011 at 1 p.m.

  • "The profiler also said that 75% of those that carry out a political assassination are sane."

    There's a difference between legally sane and sane and you know that. And you keep trying to make your case here that somehow conservatives are to blame.

    Take some time from your blogging career to look up the definition of hypocritical, you'll be amazed - Chris Matthews, chuckle.

    January 14, 2011 at 11:57 a.m.

  • For those who said that crooks will always be able to get the guns, how often have "crook" been the shooters in these isolated shootings?
    If you can stop normal, albeit mentally ill, people, then it is worth some kind of reasonable gun control.

    January 14, 2011 at 11:39 a.m.

  • RE: Tidbits

    I maintain; there is no evidence to connect hateful rhetoric to the hideous act last Saturday in Tucson Arizona.

    An FBI profiler told Chris Matthews that a schizophrenic's brain is fertile ground for negative voices and a word or two about polishing your gun to take out the enemy, can take the schizophrenic over the edge. The profiler also said that 75% of those that carry out a political assassination are sane.

    January 14, 2011 at 11:36 a.m.

  • jbj

    My mistake,I only saw jbj ,I didn't see Writein above...Sorry

    I guess you continue to miss my point; I'm trying to say who really cares what Montel Williams or Mike Malloy says... The same goes for Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.... I'm not going to waste my time in a tit- for- tat; it's a complete waste of our time.

    January 14, 2011 at 10:45 a.m.

  • Mike, I think it was writein who suggested national guard. I pretty much didn't agree or disagree with that because I am not sure about it.

    If the people I mentioned did not say what I reported them to have said, there are some very good likenesses of them claiming to be them. Malloy attacked Bush and Cheney. Really nasty comments about Cheney's heart. Montel wanted Michelle Bachman to slit her wrists. I will try to provide links, I have to go to work in a little bit but will be back before one.

    You know, I have mentioned the "safe school czar" .. .google it, if you haven't yet... Is that something you discount? Maybe it is misinfo, I really would like to know if it is.

    I think hate talk from the left is rampant. I don't see much from the right, except for calling policy socialistic and name calling due to belief in policy. I have not heard much from the right wishing for a person to die, and I have not heard anything about gun owners taking over Washington, but if you can provide links, I will certainly read them. I am going to google the Washington item.

    January 14, 2011 at 10:09 a.m.

  • jbj

    While I generally agree with your response to the questions I asked, I think the National Guard is a little too much. I don't want a normal town hall meeting to resemble an Iraqi voting booth.... I think we can handle it with free market solution such as private security for people in Congress and a workable agreement between the secret service and the organizers of an event for a presidential event.

    I was not aware that Ed Schultz, Montel Williams, or Mike Molloy wished someone would die on national TV.... Montel Williams, really? I don't think many people know who Mike Malloy is but when did he have a national TV show? I continue to say that in the 1960s and 1970s the radicals came from the left but in the last two years nearly all of it comes from the right.

    As I've said the hatred for presidents or vice presidents will always be there, but I'm more concerned with groups carrying guns, who want to overtake the Federal government.

    I think Jon Meacham and Joe Scarborough hit the nail on the head when they said that, the 24/7 media cycle needs to be fed; oftentimes it is fed with trivia. The talking heads of left and right media need to tickle the ears of their audience, so they can receive the advertising bucks it takes to stay on the air. NPR, PBS, CSPAN, and the BBC are a great source for news, but they have very low ratings because they don't have enough show time or guest shouting at one another.

    January 14, 2011 at 9:14 a.m.

  • Thanks for the solution, Legion357....Have you ever considered politics?

    I was looking at it all wrong; simple is better as you suggested. Why involve the politicos for a presidential event? It could be worked out by the secret service and the organizers of an event. If they can't come to an agreement; the president doesn't attend....Acknowledging that town hall meetings may be more contentious these days; it wouldn't be a bad idea for them to check in with local law enforcement before a meeting. We agree.

    Even though it's common knowledge the criminals and irrational people will always be able to get guns; it doesn't mean that we have to totally disregard common sense solutions or laws. E.g. I've always said that gun laws in the inner cities of Chicago don't have to mimic the ones in Wyoming.

    January 14, 2011 at 8:51 a.m.

  • Some of you need to read the story of Joe Zamudio, one of the heroes who subdued the shooter, but first was ready to shoot the wrong man. He ran out with his gun, safety off, ready to shoot if necessary and saw a man with a gun, only that man was the one who had already disarmed the gunman. Zamudio said he didn't draw his own weapon because he didn't want to be targeted as a second shooter.

    January 14, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.

  • For example, every time someone mentions education here it sets me off on a TAKS rant. I FEEL like the topic is so important, but I KNOW that when I am overly passionate, my point is lost. I bet psychology would show that when we are feeling, we aren't as rational. Love AND hate are blind.

    January 14, 2011 at 8:27 a.m.

  • Has anyone heard of "non-violent communication?"

    If your goal is to really be understood, maybe you could look into changing the way you communicate, Writein. It might just be me, but your points are lost in the anger and emotionalism.

    Maybe some think their point will be made because of their emotion or passion, but, sadly, that's when it's lost.

    January 14, 2011 at 8:21 a.m.

  • JBJ.

    Me insinuating something not fact? No. Me think you take your marching orders from Fox? YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Me think you are only saying a half-truth? YES, A HALF TURTH IS A LIE IN MY BOOK !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Speaking about talking points and the news source, I do not eat up liberal/progessive because I am not a LEFTIST. I watch all media, but most of my anger is on Fox News for many reasons. Glenn Beck should be FIRED !!!!!!!!!

    January 14, 2011 at 7:02 a.m.

  • Oh I see you watch Fox also, Writein. Are you insinuating that these examples are not factual?

    Just because a news source does not say what you want to hear does not mean it is not true. If these people did not say hateful things, there are some really talented puppets out there.

    There are talking points on the left as well as the right.

    January 14, 2011 at 6:35 a.m.

  • JBJ

    What about people on this forum and on the editoiral board??? It seem to me that you had just watch Bill 'O Reilly since you mention Malloy, Schultz, and Williams. Now you are repeating the Fox News talking points.

    January 13, 2011 at 11:38 p.m.

  • I saw a problem and identified it as such two or so years ago with the hate expressed toward George W. Bush, then Cheney, Limbaugh and Palin. Mike Malloy, Schultz, even Montel Williams, to mention just a few, have been not just critics, but wished someone to die or have illness, and said so on national tv. I could list many more. Was this not a problem then? How can the sheriff of Pima County point to one political camp and ignore the hate and death wishes from his own?

    I do not mean the critics of policy, I am referring to personal attacks and wishes for illness and death to befall those with opposing views. This has to stop.

    This has been a violent atmosphere, to be sure. And acknowledging that both sides are heavily involved is the first step.

    In the past, plenty of disagreements have been a part of our government without the hate we are seeing now. Because people disagree does not mean they have to hate each other.

    January 13, 2011 at 11:12 p.m.

  • JBJ.

    The solution is right under the nose . Use the National Guard or the Air Guard to provide safety for Federal Judges and Congressman in public settings.

    January 13, 2011 at 10:02 p.m.

  • Here is a simple answer to the three specific questions. NO But this is another "should" situation.

    We should not allow guns at the events mentioned in question one and two. In outlawing guns, non criminals and sane citizens would not bring their guns. Would that solve the problem? If not, then how do we protect the non criminals, sane citizens and political figures from the ones who do not follow rules? More protection by law enforcement? We need to do something. I don't think it is the answer for everyone to bring a gun, tho.

    And there is no reason we can't discuss banning ammo clip extenders.

    January 13, 2011 at 9:32 p.m.

  • I was hoping and praying that this blog would help people to examine the political climate, the harmful rhetoric, the character assassinations, and their own hatred. But the comments made by Rollinstone and Woofwoof only reinforced my belief, that is this part of the world will never change. Which embraces Good Ole Boyism and the “us vs. them” mentality.

    January 13, 2011 at 7:41 p.m.

  • I was hoping and praying that this blog would help people to examine the political climate, the harmful rhetoric, the character assassinations, and their own hatred. But the comments made by Rollinstone and Woofwoof only reinforced that is this part of the world will never change, which embraces Good Ole Boyism.

    January 13, 2011 at 7:35 p.m.

  • My, my Mikey what an inflammatory outburst - good example of hateful political rhetoric. I assure you I do not feel an ounce of guilt not even a nano-gram and why should I? I have called Obama a socialist because I've seen who he has in his administration - they have been caught on tape making some pretty radical socialists statements. What am I suppose to think they readily admit they are socialist and would like to make the country more so.

    I have also opposed his economic policies and supported them with expert opinions and past experience. We are now in a huge fiscal hole that Obama keeps digging deeper - sorry but I don't like it one bit and that is my right to do, I really don't care if you like it or not.

    You say there is no call for limiting free speech. I hear it all the time from many in the administration and members of the Democratic Party. They would like nothing better, in fact I doubt you would be alarmed very much if Fox News and some talk radio was forced off the air - after all it's just nonsense. I know you, prefer the nonsense from your hero Chris "I'm a jackass" Matthews.

    And I really am appalled somewhat how this tragic event is being turned into a political food fight actually accusing conservatives of causing it without a shred of evidence - have you no shame?

    January 13, 2011 at 6:30 p.m.

  • Mike...To answer your questions, I don't think a handgun in the holster or waistband of a person with a concealed carry permit is a danger. The people who go to the trouble of following the law, taking the training and obtaining the license are good citizens and present no danger to politicians or the people in the crowd listening to the speech. If there had been a citizen at the Arizona rally with a handgun and the training to use it in an emergency, much like the jogger in Florida, lives could have been saved and injuries prevented. Sadly, that wasn't the case.

    The magazine extensions don't make a whole lot of sense. You can change magazines in a semi-auto in about a blink and a half of the eye so large capacities aren't necessary. Besides, I was always taught the most important shot was the first. If you haven't ended the fight by the time you empty the magazine, you're better off running away. Now, if your intent is, like the guy in Arizona, to inflict as much damage as possible, smaller capacity magazines could help keep down the carnage and give security a chance to nab you.

    I believe people with a documented history of mental illness should be barred from owning firearms. This wouldn't have helped in Arizona, though, because although there were a bunch of people who thought this guy was crazy, I don't think he'd ever been confined and diagnosed.

    I would remind you that, just like cars, guns by themselves aren't dangerous. But irresponsible people can do a lot of damage with either. And a very small percentage of gun owners/users have ever run afoul of the law. By and large, those are very law abiding citizens.

    January 13, 2011 at 5:41 p.m.

  • This thread has taken some twists I see. As I commented on another blog, my first thought when I heard of this tragedy, was of James Cagney on top of the propane or lpg tank, shouting "Look at me Ma, top of the world!"

    Would any of us even know who this person is if he wouldn't have committed this despicable crime?

    Like Mike said, no one yet really knows the motive behind this shooting, time will tell... maybe.

    In a attempt to answer Mikes questions, I think that the organizers of any event, or owner of any property, should be able to decide for themselves whether firearms are allowed by the general public or not, but like other things the general public is allowed or not to do, it seems a law has to be passed to take the decision away from the individual owner or organizer and let the government decide.

    That took care of # 1 and 2.

    #3, Even though I support gun ownership, of course some types of arms should not be available to the general public. That being said, if a person really wants to buy a illegal type of arm, there are people that are more than happy to meet that want for a price.

    Criminals don't usually buy their weapon through legal channels, so gun laws are a moot point for criminals and deranged individuals, gun laws only effect legal buyers.

    January 13, 2011 at 5:32 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 13, 2011 at 5:19 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 13, 2011 at 5:15 p.m.

  • I'm going to agree once again because it's irritating for someone to insult my intelligence (what little I have) by pointing to days in history of another country or this one, for that matter, to say “it’s like every day at the office."... Shamefully, I watch politics from the time I wake until I go to bed; who are they trying to fool?

    It's not about free speech because, if they want to listen and watch the nonsense, there's not a call to put a stop to that. Roger Ailes of Fox News (with a wink and a nod) told his boy's to tone it down a bit. It's literally impossible to shut up right wing blogs, radio, and Fox, so that never has been the issue; it's a diversion to distract from the real issues.

    You see. Civility levels the playing field... Then the issues take the center stage and not liberal/ progressive socialist this and not.

    It seems like a lot of guilt is coming to the forefront masked by diversions such the definition of free speech, liberty, political assassination, and hateful rhetoric. People are not that stupid.

    January 13, 2011 at 4:22 p.m.

  • Born, lighten up man, it's not the end of the world.....yet. And I just got word to John Boehner not to take over the country - at ease man.

    January 13, 2011 at 4:11 p.m.

  • Rebecca, we disagree on most of the comments here on this blog. That makes me feel sad - are you reading a psychology book? :)

    January 13, 2011 at 4:08 p.m.

  • I'm going to step in and say one more thing that is not going to be popular. Anyone that is blowing this off is guilty of buying into it, one way or another. Otherwise you would be just as appalled as many Americans are. People are getting fed up and the ones you see saying it's just part of politics, are guilty of the same actions, because they are the only ones that don't see a problem with their own actions.

    January 13, 2011 at 3:55 p.m.

  • Rollin, what is it exactly that we are disagreeing on?

    January 13, 2011 at 3:41 p.m.

  • Those are really specific questions, Mike. I would hope that they would generate some specific answers.

    January 13, 2011 at 3:40 p.m.

  • I think a lot of people are in denial.

    I'm old enough to have seen the beatings of the civil rights era(on TV), the 1968 democratic headquarters chaos, the riots in Los Angeles, Detroit, and Philadelphia but they were isolated to specific regions.

    People can excuse the outburst at the State of the Union (you lie) where that politician received over $1 million for that irrational behavior, guns at political rallies and presidential events and the list goes on and on but to deny that the political atmosphere is not at a boiling point,is beyond my comprehension. It seems as though hyperbole is being used to justify irrational behavior .

    People are ignoring the death threats, vandalism of a politician's office, and calls for overthrowing the Federal government. It's just good ole boys talk.

    I don't have any psychic powers but I can see the trends. I could fill a couple blogs listing all the domestic violence attributed to politics. I have never seen such a climate filled with hatred than that I have seen the last two years. I wish it was it was just me but people like Tom Brokaw,Colin Powell, and others see the same thing.

    I know why they don't care if it continues..They think they have the edge.

    January 13, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.

  • Rebecca, I think we just disagree on this, what more can I say?

    January 13, 2011 at 3:35 p.m.

  • I'm against untrue, unsubstantiated labels being forced on the American public through the media. In any other circumstance, those character assassinations would be reason for a defamation of character lawsuit. People should be held accountable for what they say.
    I have no problem with elections and mudslinging as long as the facts are true and provable. The American people deserve to have true facts when faced with electing their public officials.
    Anyone, or any part of the media who airs untrue, or unprovable facts, should be held accountable to their part in lying to the American public.
    As I see it, the media should be held to the same standards that a witness has in a courtroom. Anything else is unacceptable.

    January 13, 2011 at 3:34 p.m.

  • I'm sticking by my " politically motivated" definition because congresswoman Giffords was his representative. Just because he he was insane at the time doesn't mean that he couldn't conjure up his hate for government, our monetary policies, or the answer he received from congresswoman Gifford's. It may be proven not to be the case at a later date..READ the CHARGES.

    I don't see the connection between Hinckley and Loughner.... Timothy McVeigh,Sirhan Sirhan, John Wilkes Booth, and Lee Harvey Oswald and Jared Louughner were political assassins because they targeted politicians based of their political beliefs.

    I really don't know why that determination matters.

    January 13, 2011 at 3:15 p.m.

  • Born, I fear for every President, why anyone would want the job is a mystery. Reagan was shot, Ford was shot at, the Clinton White House was attacked by a nut with an AK-47 and another nut tried to fly a plane into it. Bush 2 I'm surprised he survived with all the vitriol piled on him.

    The truth is American politics has always been a little chaotic and contentious. I don't think it was meant to be that way but the rise of political parties made it inevitable. But the frequency of these random shooting sprees could be getting worse and I think it's because of the instant worldwide fame produced by round the clock TV news. Jared Loughren has become known worldwide for his infamous deed. His name and picture will be on the news for weeks - that I think provided some if not most of his motivation.

    We pay a price for free speech, the Germans paid a much worse price when it was suppressed by the Nazis - personally I think our way is better. And barring yelling fire in a movie theatre, I am absolutely against any attempt at limiting free speech, particularly political rhetoric.

    January 13, 2011 at 3:09 p.m.

  • Born..."There are impressionable minds out there and that is what is so dangerous about all of the negative political rhetoric."

    Are you suggesting that people who disagree with the political party in power should not say what is on their minds because there MIGHT be some crazy person who would take dissent as a mandate for murder? That's more scary than the guy with the gun. Shutting up people who disagree with the president or governor or mayor or school board affects far more people than a nut with a gun or knife.

    January 13, 2011 at 3:05 p.m.

  • Mike..."Jared Loughner had previously met congressman Giffords, was angered over the answers he received from her, targeted her for assassination, so by definition it was political."

    I'm not as convinced as you that the motive of the shooting was political because a congresswoman was the presumed target. I think he's just crazy and saw an opportunity to be famous or notorious or whatever delusion happened to be going through his damaged mind. The federal judge wasn't political -- he was appointed and never had to run for re-election. The other victims just happened to be in the wrong place at a time a crazy person started shooting.

    John Hinkley's target was certainly a political figure in President Reagan, but his motive wasn't political any more than Mark David Chapman's motive for killing John Lennon was to make a statement as a music critic. The Virginia Tech killer, Seung-Hui Cho, wasn't making a statement about the state of university education.

    Crazy people do crazy things and who knows -- even the shrinks who examine them afterward -- what the REAL reason was for doing their mayhem. Son of Sam listened to the voices of dogs, for cryin' out loud. Maybe Laughner is just crazy. If so, it wouldn't surprise me to see him end up like Hinkley -- not guilty by reason of insanity and spend his time in a hospital instead of a prison cell.

    January 13, 2011 at 2:57 p.m.

  • Rebecca, you are levelheaded, perhaps you can help me understand.

    Why can't I get an answer to my questions?

    1. Should guns be allowed at political rallies?
    2. Should guns be allowed at presidential events?
    3. Is there reason we can't have a discussion about banning ammo clip extenders.

    I think I know the answer... By answering yes, those three questions, it supposedly weakens the position of a strong advocate of the second amendment. Gun fundamentalists will not waver, discuss, our support any restrictions because they fear that is the first step for government confiscation. It's what they've been taught and believe.

    Even though we have the most liberal gun laws in the world, the gun fundamentalist are not satisfied. IMO

    woofwoof took a stab but he was wide and to the right..:-)

    January 13, 2011 at 2:51 p.m.

  • OK,not that my opinion means that much but I have already answered those questions in the blog I took down and another personal blog.

    Jared Loughner had previously met congressman Giffords, was angered over the answers he received from her, targeted her for assassination, so by definition it was political.

    Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Fox News or Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh or talk radio didn't have anything to do with the Tucson massacre. They do create an atmosphere of divisiveness, as some left wing pundits do. I am not taking a defensive position because I love all cultures, I don't hate conservatives, or hate republicans. I'm on the other side but to me losing or winning is not forever.

    As for evidence, the suspect is not talking. speculation runs high, but he has not been evaluated. The fact that he read(or did he?) literature about communism and fascism may or may not be relevant. I'm not afraid to say I don't know what cause Jared Loughner to commit his hideous act.

    We can continue to have passionate debates(and we will) where lies and campaign contributions usually win but the highlight(for me) of the 2008 campaign was when John McCain rightly corrected his supporter by saying " no ma'am, Senator Obama, is not a Muslim, he is a Christian family man, we have our differences when it comes to politics." I'm paraphrasing. The other day I heard that the United States leads the entire world in political assassinations.

    The politics of hate should never trump civil discourse.

    There is hope ,Rebecca, last night at the Arizona arena, the 14,000, who were inside and the 12,000 who were outside, were not republicans, democrats, conservatives, or liberals; they were united Americans, who were mourning over a senseless killing and seeking answers for avoiding another one.

    January 13, 2011 at 2:33 p.m.

  • rollinstone,

    I cannot say what prompted him to start shooting and political rhetoric comes in many forms and from many places. People talk on the street, it's in newspapers, it's online. He found out where the congresswoman was going to be, now where did he get that information?
    It's just irresponsible for persons in the public eye to be putting out that kind of hate and fueling hatred for those that think differently than they do.
    This year has been worse than I can ever remember. I truly fear for the President and Vice President because I think that many are thinking about the chance to get Boehner into the oval office so they can carry on their plans.

    January 13, 2011 at 2:13 p.m.

  • (if I misunderstood something, please help me understand)

    January 13, 2011 at 2:01 p.m.

  • Rollin, do you really believe what you just typed? If so, you exemplified the rhetoric and the reasoning that we want to avoid: assumptions taken to their most extreme exaggerated conclusions.

    We have acknowledged that Loughner had some crazy radical political views and we also expressed disgust with people who were trying to twist those views for the purpose of finger-pointing. I heard commentators from both "sides" of the political spectrum doing just that. I'm not putting up with it from either one.

    Does it bother you that this tragedy made many people step back and evaluate how we communicate with each other? Is it a bad thing to want to be more responsible with our words?

    January 13, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.

  • woofwoof

    Did you take a sharp right and land in this blog by mistake?

    I can't possibly see the connection between the Tucson massacre and the one at Fort Hood. The president spoke at both memorials, so I don't really know what your issue is.

    I would've been impressed with your historical post if it had any relevance.

    I don't know how anyone could read the blog I wrote and come away thinking I wanted to confiscate personal arms from citizens of the United States..... I don't know how old you are but when I was taught civics, one of the things I remembered was "of the people, by the people, for the people." Our elected representatives(ballot box) act in our behalf(general statement) in the 1980s they overwhelmingly decided to ban armor piercing bullets and plastic guns that could get by airport security.... The conservative of conservatives, President Ronald Reagan, signed the legislation. It's a little late to say they violated the constitution.

    I said " let's have a discussion" about whether guns should be allowed at political rallies or presidential events.... Is there a strong need for an ammo clip extender? I've been around awhile. I know when people chose to take a superior position (in their mind)by denigrating liberals rather than have the issue come up for a vote... I guess you missed the part where I said the NRA will never let this come up for a vote, and they have the Republican Party for backup.... Campaign contributions will override a civil discussion any day of the week.

    January 13, 2011 at 1:26 p.m.

  • So the shooting was political, was it caused by political rhetoric? Is there any proof of this? I heard that Loughner mostly favored literature about communism and fascism and rarely watched TV news.

    But, assuming it was caused by political rhetoric, then it seems logical that we should stop having political campaigns and elections - because that's the only way we can completely stop "dangerous" political rhetoric that may adversely affect the insane.

    I like that have the tail wag the dog, we just need a "work around" for all the crazy people - great way to run a country.

    January 13, 2011 at 1:22 p.m.

  • born2Bme

    I agree and I will take it a step further because I think all the gun metaphors that were used in the last campaign were stupid. I think there are those that want to centralize the heinous act on the person being mentality ill, so that way we don't have to address the hateful rhetoric, red baiting and the constant call for secession or a revolution. It doesn't have to be democrat or republican to be political. The person who ran the small plane into the IRS building had a vendetta against the government. Loughner targeted congresswoman Giffords and killed a Federal judge, so you are correct, by definition it was political. We have to remember some of these groups hate the government and are promoting tyranny. Loughner has not spoken or has been evaluated but he was rational enough to carry out his assassination.

    As you remember, after the Oklahoma City bombing, the militias went away. They have regrouped and their numbers are growing.

    Again, I agree and the massacre might be carried out by a sane person who was brain washed with the hate rhetoric.

    January 13, 2011 at 12:49 p.m.

  • Writein said "It is my hope and a prayer that a "Second Era of Good Feelings" is coming back to America with the President's speech."

    I'm with you on a hope and prayer and I thought we were headed in the right direction, but they are still some that do not want civility..... After the speech last night I tuned into Fox News because I knew the worst critique would come from them. I admit, I was surprised because Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, and Charles Krauthammer gave the president great reviews. They couldn't leave it at that. They were relieved that the president did not blame the right for the massacre. Brit Hume and Charles Krauthammer started pointing fingers at the left and got into a defensive position.

    We don't have to let that bother us.... The accused has not spoken yet, so no one really knows what motivated him. He wasn't irrational 24/7 he held down jobs and could plan the assassination....How can anyone say that it was not political because he stalked the congresswoman, he shot the congresswoman and killed a Federal judge?

    January 13, 2011 at 12:24 p.m.

  • Rebecca said "I'm choosing to step out of that mental progression."... Good for you, more of us should follow your lead (myself included), and you made a couple great posts while you were in a state of emotion to boot.

    January 13, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.

  • Thank you very much, jbj, in the last paragraph, I stated why I pulled the blog. I hope you understand. We can't just continue to sweep things on the road and say " stuff happens."

    I agree we can't legislate morality, but we are a civilized nation; we should act accordingly.

    I can't say your premise is wrong, but I respectfully disagree because these circumstances carry equal weight..IMO

    1.There was a man armed at the scene but the extender the assailant had, enabled him to fire off more than 30 quick rounds at point blank range. He also had the element of surprise in his favor.
    2. The father and the suspect had a quarrel that morning over the contents of the black bag Loughner pulled out of the trunk of the family car. If the father could have subdued him, it would not have happened.
    3. If the family, Army, community college, friends college,friends and relatives would have taken the steps to get him some help... It would not have happened.
    4. If the state of Arizona had better mental health facilities; it might not have happened.
    5. He might not have had the opportunity to injuring and killing so many people without that ammo clip extender.
    6. Loughner had 12 encounters with the Tucson police department.
    7. A game warden issued Loughner a warning for speeding the morning of the massacre.
    8. He acquired his ammunition on the morning of the shooting; what if they would have refused him?

    I'm just trying to point out , could have, should have and would've are correct 100% of the time.

    Have good day.

    January 13, 2011 at 12:01 p.m.

  • The "problem" isn't with gun ownership, gun sales, gun manufacturing or gun's with mental illness in this case.

    Intelligent people must realize that if we made firearms illegal to have and to hold that only those citizens who obey the laws will be affected...criminals do not care and most don't buy their firearms from gun stores.

    The break down in the system this time was poor communication between organizations...has nothing to do with gun laws really because if he had been in the system as having been mentally ill he wouldn't have passed the background check.

    In any case had more people been armed and trained to use their weapons it's possible that fewer innocent people would have been killed or injured.

    Facts and figures don't lie, well unless you're one of the liberals who don't care about facts and figures but only what you believe yourself. If you'll look at the FBI crime reports for the past year or so you'll see that in states where concealed handgun licenses are in use have less crimes committed with firearms than those who do not. And you'll see that states with the strictest gun control laws usually have more crimes committed with firearms.

    Rebecca...educate your children about firearms and get a gun but don't make it a big mystery for them, teach them about what it is and what it can do and when they understand you maybe the thought of having a gun won't scare you anymore.

    January 13, 2011 at 11:56 a.m.

  • rollinstone,

    I don't care what you choose to believe, there are a lot of crazy folks out there that are willing to take the law into their own hands and if they think they can prove they are better Americans, then they will act on what they hear. All of this Nazi talk, socialism BS, and such. Remember the skinheads, and that dragging death? Certain people have a certain mindset and they can be prompted to act, and yes, it can be from something they heard, and remember when that police offer got shot in Edna? They said it was from lyrics he heard on a song. There are impressionable minds out there and that is what is so dangerous about all of the negative political rhetoric.

    January 13, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.

  • Before you confiscate gpersonal arms from citizens of the U.S., refresh your thoughts with the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment adopted Dec. 15,1791 and also the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. On the 12th of January, Florida voted to secede from the Union after Alabama and South Carolina and sent a milita to seize the Naval Yard in Pensacola, Florida of which surrendered with out a fight.

    January 13, 2011 at 9:52 a.m.

  • Woof, have you seen his YouTube videos? He was obsessed with some type of strange unclassifiable politically motivated ideas. They were kind of the extremes from all sides. He "favorited" a video of the American flag being burned.

    Just more information. I do not have a point.

    January 13, 2011 at 9:35 a.m.

  • The crazed killer's friends said that he did not watch tv news and did not listen to political radio.

    January 13, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.

  • offense to Mr. Beck.

    January 13, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.

  • Maybe the internet amplifies it more... I guess it isn't wise to fight with strangers, because you are tempted to dehumanize them. Instead of trying to understand where they are coming from, you pick a word or idea out of their context and use it to fight more. That doesn't build community - it destroys it. Since this is a local forum, we are missing an opportunity to use it in a positive way.

    I shouldn't post when I'm emotional because I sound like a female Glenn Beck, a Glenn Becky.

    January 13, 2011 at 9:03 a.m.

  • Woof, even tragedies get reduced to us vs them? We are always weighing everything in the right vs left scale: is "the other team" being shown favoritism? Just because others see the world in black or white, fodder for fighters, doesn't mean we all have to take on that mindset. I think THIS is how we get from a nation of individuals to civil war: polarization, brainwashed in our own rhetoric, and eventually extremism and hate. I'm choosing to step out of that mental progression. (progression isn't the right word)

    January 13, 2011 at 8:58 a.m.

  • B2BM, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey author of "The Insanity Offense: How America's Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens" (surely the longest title of a book) says and I quote, "The motivation for such killings is usually based on psychotic thinking, not political thinking."

    He goes on to point out that this problem started getting worse when states started emptying their mental hospitals, but failed to provide any treatment to the inmates after they left. Recent studies have indicated that 50 to 60 percent of the prisoners in detention are mentally ill along with a large portion of the homeless.

    He also pointed out that Arizona's public mental health services are among the worse in the nation, the study ranked them next to last among the states.

    B2BM, you can believe what you want but these people are not capable of rational thought political or otherwise. And to believe that political rhetoric is the cause is misguided and misdirects where we should be focusing our attention.

    January 13, 2011 at 8:54 a.m.

  • Rollin, I think it's sad when people justify their refusal to admit that maybe we could all benefit from responsible dialogue by pointing fingers at others. "He talks that way..." "She hit me first..."

    I'm just saying that waiting for others to change before we change is silly. You can only change you.

    January 13, 2011 at 8:45 a.m.

  • Contrast the uproar over this shooting compared to the killing of eight innocents at Fort Hood; makes one wonder what really is up in this country. Obama went to Fort Hood a few days late, did a 'shout out' to his buddies, and did not offer much in any manner of speaking. That was a heinous crime on a military installation. The jihadist shooter and subsequent disposition of that crime has fallen off the lame stream media radar.

    January 13, 2011 at 8:35 a.m.

  • I think when we hear the words talking about people should die, taking someone out with bullets, or anything referring to death or killing, it has gone too far.
    I'm sorry, even though this man was crazy, it was a political thing with him. He was fixated on the Constitutional rights and the overreach of government. Now whether, it had anything to do with anything he had heard, only he knows. But it was Political.

    January 13, 2011 at 8:14 a.m.

  • "How many more senseless killings, vandalism, and calls for hate does it take for us to admit that there might be a problem? Like all the other problems that are left unsolved; we first have to admit that there is a problem. I can quote as well as anyone else, of times when our country has weathered the turmoil, but I can't recall a more violent atmosphere than these last two years. Unless we ratchet down the rhetoric, the next incident will be between normally sane people driven into a frenzy with misinformation and a call for violence. If things go according to plan, there will be more controversial legislation coming down, that will need to be dealt rationally."

    There's a problem alright. This killer was not motivated by any political rhetoric , he was crazy he heard voices in his head. Secondly, violent atmosphere in the last two years? Virginia Tech occurred in 2007, DC Sniper in 2002, Columbine in 1999. Before this we had the Son of Sam, his dog told him to kill, then there's Charles Manson and the list goes on. Recently the Fort Hood Massacre did occur in the last two years - by a Muslim terrorists, perhaps he was also crazy, it's hard to tell with a terrorist.

    I admit we have a problem controlling crazy people, but political rhetoric, come on - Obama himself has engaged quite often in flammatory speech. So at what point does political rhetoric become dangerous? Who will decide that? At what point does it affect someone who is insane? Again this crap about "political rhetoric" is.....well just more political rhetoric. It's a sly and dangerous attempt to silence political opposition, and to limit freedom of speech.

    January 13, 2011 at 8 a.m.

  • Woof, you sure want to perpetuate that "us vs them" mentality...

    January 13, 2011 at 7:54 a.m.

  • Mr. President, not long ago, you called the other side "enemy" remember?????

    January 13, 2011 at 7:46 a.m.

  • I'm disgusted that someone like Jared Loughner could legally have a gun. That IS a problem! I think drug users shouldn't have guns either. There's only one way to track drug users and I won't get into that...

    January 13, 2011 at 7:17 a.m.

  • I missed the president's speech. Does anyone have a link to a transcript or video?

    January 13, 2011 at 7:06 a.m.

  • Literally, too, JBJ. =D

    January 13, 2011 at 7:05 a.m.

  • It is my hope and a prayer that a "Second Era of Good Feelings" is coming back to America with the President's speech.

    January 13, 2011 at 6:22 a.m.

  • Mike, for the record, I agreed with the post you pulled. I was going to post a comment saying so but didn't do it right then, and then it was gone.

    I know it could be a problem if bystanders had a gun, but in this recent tragedy, we had unarmed men and women trying to stop a massacre. If someone had had a gun, who knows what could have happened. We could have had friendly fire injuries, maybe less overall. One thing is for sure: Whatever the rules are, they won't apply to crazies and criminals.

    I am going to step out of character and applaud Mr. Obama and his wife, those from his administration, and others there who made the memorial service very meaningful.

    And yes, Rebecca, an exit wound on a fish would probably disquality it. But you would probably shoot your foot.

    January 12, 2011 at 11:27 p.m.

  • "We know the problem." Do we?

    It's clear as mud.

    January 12, 2011 at 4:45 p.m.

  • The solution is both simple and complex: Bring back the State Mental Hospitals and remove the legal roadblocks to involuntary commitment that have been erected over the years by the ACLU and their ilk. Regardless of how looney they are, they can neither buy nor use guns if they are locked up.

    January 12, 2011 at 3:54 p.m.

  • Rebecca...I don't know how old (young?) your kids are, but beginning to teach them about gun safety and responsibility should start at a young age. Teach them to respect the power and danger of a gun, but to not be afraid of them and that they are NOT toys. Male and female can grow up enjoying the shooting sports safely and they will have learned how to use a firearm to protect themselves and their families.

    January 12, 2011 at 2:57 p.m.

  • You know what they say "If you have to ask."

    January 12, 2011 at 2:42 p.m.

  • I wonder if a fish with an exit wound would get you disqualified in fishing tournaments?

    January 12, 2011 at 2:38 p.m.

  • Lol...Maybe I'm too old and forgetful; I forget to get scared...:-)

    January 12, 2011 at 2:37 p.m.

  • As a female, the thought of carrying a gun around in my purse makes me feel safe, but as a mom the thought scares me. I never wanted a house with a pool and I don't think I would want a gun as long as I have children. I WILL purchase one eventually. A pink one. I could use it for fishing. I'm impatient.

    January 12, 2011 at 2:32 p.m.