Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

[EmperorNapoleon]

So who gets to decide what language or imagery is allowed?

That is ultimately for the Supreme Court to decide.

It is really sad that just about all of the left wing pundits / politicians who are politicizing this tragedy only seem to bring up examples of right wing rhetoric and are very silent about the well document left wing rhetoric…

Two reasons:

1. Only right wing candidates based their campaigns on violent inuendo and threats of violence if they lost. There were some off-the-cuff and inappropriate remarks made by left wing candidates from time to time but it wasn’t anywhere close to the constant beating of drums and call to arms of the right wing.
2. The person lying in the hospital is a Democrat; not a Republican or a Tea Party candidate.

We live in a free country, this is not but an attempt to silence political dissent.

Treasonous calls for a bloody revolution are not legitimate political dissent. Freedom of speech is not now nor has it ever been open-ended. Nor is the second amendment a license to have whatever weapons you want.

I can’t believe you just said that.

What do you think “second amendment remedies” and “If ballots don’t work bullets will” when discussing loosing to Democrats means?

Yet flag burnings and beating/threatening/scaring union employees/children is ok?

Flag burnings don’t really bother me but I would agree that the later is unacceptable.

 

[kenofken]

What’s the reason for the double standard?

People on the left are allowed to say and do anything:

zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Whereas, even the most innocuous things by people on the right are condemned.

The difference is that these days the right wing is the only one in any real position to pose a serious threat to public order and the existence of a democratic republic itself. This has not always been the case of course. In the late 60s and early 70s, it was left wing armed extremism that very much threatened the fabric of public order in this country. The left wing, at present, is not the one arming itself to the teeth. It is not the one primarily which is speaking of “Second Amendment solutions” to electoral outcomes it does not like. It is not the one which is characterizing our president and most of his party as an evil and alien occupying force that “real patriots” should “do something” to correct. That’s not to say that the left wing is any more inherently virtuous. It may well be they’re not much of a threat simply because they don’t have the organizational ability or numbers to be so these days.

This guy is nuts. He may or may not have taken inspiration from Glen Beck or Sarah Palin or anyone else. He may have been set off by song lyrics or the inflection of somebody’s voice on the morning news. On the other hand, his actions are the answer to a prayer that some right wingers have been floating out on the wind nonstop for several years.

If words are just words and nobody should be held to account for what they say, why is it that people get so worked up about allowing radical imams to preach hatred in this country and Europe? They don’t, after all, provide the money, guns or training for the do-it-yourself terrorists who have defined the movement since 9/11. The imams don’t cut orders saying “attack this target at a certain date.” They do nothing more than many of our own far rightists these days: they beat the drum that their opponents are hopelessly evil and corrupt and that it’s time for “real men” to step up and take any action necessary to remove them. If we’re not cool allowing that sort of thing, why won’t we hold our own people to the same account?

 

[bbarrick8383]

What do you think “second amendment remedies” and “If ballots don’t work bullets will” when discussing loosing to Democrats means?

I think it’s part of the reason why we have a first and second amendment to begin with.

The ignorance in your logic is what’s so astounding. If this guy had Palin posters all over his bedroom wall, you might have a point.

But you have absolutely no ground to stand on and yet you’re tripping all over your the place, I don’t think you really see how stupid this sounds do you?

Nobody, has committed any acts of violence in the name of their conservative ideology, yet you spew such ignorance?

 

[shockerfan]

That is ultimately for the Supreme Court to decide.

Two reasons:

1. Only right wing candidates based their campaigns on violent inuendo and threats of violence if they lost. There were some off-the-cuff and inappropriate remarks made by left wing candidates from time to time but it wasn’t anywhere close to the constant beating of drums and call to arms of the right wing.
2. The person lying in the hospital is a Democrat; not a Republican or a Tea Party candidate.

1. So in the case of the union thugs in St. Louis that beat up a conservative at a townhall event, you would support the arrest of Barack Obama since he implored people to “get in their faces” if they took that to heart in their attack?
2. So you have proof that this kook did this due to right wing rhetoric?

Most people are disagreeing with you because you have an obvious double standard.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I think it’s part of the reason why we have a first and second amendment to begin with.

The first and second amendments have their limits; always have.

The ignorance in your logic is what’s so astounding. If this guy had Palin posters all over his bedroom wall, you might have a point.

Again, they, whether directly or indirectly, the Tea Party got what it asked for. This is the kind of activity they’ve been advocating.

Nobody, has committed any acts of violence in the name of their conservative ideology, yet you spew such ignorance?

So you think people were attacking and vandalizing Democratic campaign offices because they like Democrats? Or perhaps that Ohio militia was plotting a violent attack on a police officer and bombings as part of a plan to lead the way in an armed rebellion against the Federal government did so because they loved the Democratic Congress?

 

[kenofken]

So you truly believe Palin wanted someone to shoot a member of congress?

No. On the other hand, she and many others on her end of the spectrum have made it very clear that they’re not entirely committed to government strictly by rule of law and orderly democratic transition via the ballot box. They’ve basically said in a very thinly veiled way that democracy is something to be tolerated only so long as it produces the right outcomes. They consider themselves to be the only vessels of the true spirit of our country and believe that ANY action is ultimately justified to restore that spirit from the people they feel have debased or stolen it. They may or may not realize how dark and dangerous a path they are flirting with. This is the stuff of Rwanda and Serbia and Europe of the 1930s.

 

[shockerfan]

No. On the other hand, she and many others on her end of the spectrum have made it very clear that they’re not entirely committed to government strictly by rule of law and orderly democratic transition via the ballot box. They’ve basically said in a very thinly veiled way that democracy is something to be tolerated only so long as it produces the right outcomes. They consider themselves to be the only vessels of the true spirit of our country and believe that ANY action is ultimately justified to restore that spirit from the people they feel have debased or stolen it. They may or may not realize how dark and dangerous a path they are flirting with. This is the stuff of Rwanda and Serbia and Europe of the 1930s.

You paint with a might broad brush. I guess the equivalent would be John Hinkley = Democrat. I don’t agree with that statement, but it comes close to what you are saying. I think a healthy reading of the 8th commandment is in order.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

1. So in the case of the union thugs in St. Louis that beat up a conservative at a townhall event, you would support the arrest of Barack Obama since he implored people to “get in their faces” if they took that to heart in their attack?.

There’s a CLEAR difference between getting in someone’s face and starting a round of fisticuffs. Barack Obama didn’t threaten anyone; either directly or indirectly nor is getting in someones face an act of violence.

1. So you have proof that this kook did this due to right wing rhetoric?

It doesn’t matter if he did it due to right wing rhetoric. Right wing candidates called for this to happen and it did.

Most people are disagreeing with you because you have an obvious double standard.

There is no double standard because what the right wing candidates and left wing candidates were doing wasn’t even remotely close. Left wing candidates weren’t constantly telling people to be ready for a gunfight if they lost or to abandon democracy for revolution; right wing canditates were.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The first and second amendments have their limits; always have.

And you liberals would love to see them limited even more. As long as there is something being done that YOU don’t like, you advocate a law to stop it.

Again, they, whether directly or indirectly, the Tea Party got what it asked for. This is the kind of activity they’ve been advocating.

And yet another moronic statement.

So you think people were attacking and vandalizing Democratic campaign offices because they like Democrats?

Any evidence they were attacked/vandalized by right wing extremist? Anyone caught? Convicted? This has never happened to a Republican campaign office?

Or perhaps that Ohio militia was plotting a violent attack on a police officer and bombings as part of a plan to lead the way in an armed rebellion against the Federal government did so because they loved the Democratic Congress?

So, if someone would have just shut the liberal rhetoric up, Bill Ayers and his bunch would never have done what they did?

What’s even funnier, I was shocked at first now I’m just laughing at you. Is that you believe that these things wouldn’t happen if you could just shut the people up who say the things you disagree with.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The person lying in the hospital is a Democrat; not a Republican or a Tea Party candidate.

The shooter listed “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto” among his favorite books – traditionally NOT favorites among Republicans or Tea Partiers.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The shooter listed “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto” among his favorite books – traditionally NOT favorites among Republicans or Tea Partiers.

He also listed a book by Ayn Rand.

 

[shockerfan]

There’s a CLEAR difference between getting in someone’s face and starting a round of fisticuffs. Barack Obama didn’t threaten anyone; either directly or indirectly nor is getting in someones face an act of violence.

It doesn’t matter if he did it due to right wing rhetoric. Right wing candidates called for this to happen and it did.

There is no double standard because what the right wing candidates and left wing candidates were doing wasn’t even remotely close. Left wing candidates weren’t constantly telling people to be ready for a gunfight if they lost or to abandon democracy for revolution; right wing canditates were.

The double standard is that it is possible that the union thugs interpreted Obama’s remarks as a call to violence…which is no more a call to vilolence than Palin’s map. The only difference is you support the democrat. I wonder if you had similar outrage when Bush was hung in effigy and left wingers joked about killing him? Probably not, because “that’s different”

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The double standard is that it is possible that the union thugs interpreted Obama’s remarks as a call to violence…"

Are you really equating “get in their faces” to “If ballots dont work bullets will?”

which is no more a call to vilolence than Palin’s map…

Getting in someone’s face never killed anyone. Reloading a gun and shooting at a bullseye, especially when that bullseye is a living breathing human being, has.

I wonder if you had similar outrage when Bush was hung in effigy and left wingers joked about killing him?

I think federal law should have been enforced. And yes, it is CLEARLY different when private citizens take it upon themselves to threaten someone vs when political candidates tell their base to shoot their political opponents.

 

[Sir_Knight]

There is no double standard because what the right wing candidates and left wing candidates were doing wasn’t even remotely close. Left wing candidates weren’t constantly telling people to be ready for a gunfight if they lost or to abandon democracy for revolution; right wing canditates were.

That doesn’t even begin to compare to these …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.zombietime.com/us_out_of_iraq_now_sf_3-18-2007/IMG_2416.JPG
​

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/saveearthkillbush.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/onlydoperingo.jpg
​

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/headshotringo.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

… Continued in NEXT Post ***

 

[Sir_Knight]

*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/BushWhackerElMarco.jpg
​

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_april_10_2004/characters/120-2044_IMG.JPG

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/zazzleexecuteshirt.jpg
​

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/killbushshirt2.jpg

 

[Sir_Knight]

I think federal law should have been enforced. And yes, it is CLEARLY different when private citizens take it upon themselves to threaten someone vs when political candidates tell their base to shoot their political opponents.

You mean like John Kerry … http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/kerryonmaher.jpg
… as he was being interviewed by Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time. As can be seen in this video exclusively on the ongoodmove blog, starting at about one minute into the clip Kerry says what can only be interpreted as a threat to kill Bush:

Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

Full transcript of the interview here.

Was John Kerry ever questioned or investigated for making a threat against Bush? No.

Or when Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams gave the keynote speech to the International Women’s Peace Conference in Dallas, Texas, and said (to laughter and applause from the audience): “I mean right now, I could kill George Bush, no problem. No, I don’t mean that. I mean — how could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that.”
You can hear the audiotape of her threat on Breitbart.TV. Despite the fact that threatening to kill the president is a crime, the Secret Service refused to question her or detain her; according to the Dallas Morning News, “Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren in Washington declined to comment, but a Dallas agent said Ms. Williams had not been questioned and there were no plans to do so.” However, the people who emailed the conference in anger about her threats — they were the ones investigated: “Conference organizers reported that a Dallas police detective was working with hotel security to review about 40 hateful e-mails received in response to Ms. Williams’ speech.”

Earlier, Betty Williams said essentially the same thing in a speech in Australia on July 24, 2006, proving that this was not just a slip of the tongue but something she thinks about frequently: “I have a very hard time with this word ‘non-violence,’ because I don’t believe that I am non-violent…. Right now, I would love to kill George Bush…. I don’t know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief.”
Was Betty Williams ever questioned or investigated for making a threat against Bush? No.

How about on August 4, 2000, when Bush won the Republican nomination (but before he was president), Craig Kilborn on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn ran a graphic of the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush as he gave his acceptance speech. Although CBS belatedly apologized five days later, Kilborn was never investigated, questioned or punished, and continued to host the show for four more years.

Was Craig Kilborn ever questioned or investigated for making a threat against Bush? No.

 

[Adeodatus]

The shooter listed “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto” among his favorite books – traditionally NOT favorites among Republicans or Tea Partiers.

Obviously a Socialist.

 

[shockerfan]

I think federal law should have been enforced. And yes, it is CLEARLY different when private citizens take it upon themselves to threaten someone vs when political candidates tell their base to shoot their political opponents.

washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/dem-congressman-who-called-gop-gov-be-put-against-wall-and-shot-n

I’m curious, is Paul Kanjorski a republican or democrat?

One other question: Since you are looking to ban political rhetoric you are trying to link to this shooting without evidence it played a role, would you also look to ban copies of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, since there is a link between those books and this crime? I mean to be consistent, are we to assume you would have all the libraries in the US burn or throw away these books, since you are looking to ban language you feel contributed to this crime?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

In context with her instruction to “reload” and look at the “bullseyes” on that map? Yes.

 

[ManOnFire]

Interestingly, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) had attacked Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was seriously wounded in the shootings, for opposing decriminalization of marijuana.

Giffords had said, “There are serious public health costs associated with drug misuse, as well as larger economic and societal costs. For example, marijuana is often cited as a gateway drug that leads to the use of more dangerous narcotics. For these reasons, I do not support decriminalizing marijuana.”

Now she is fighting for her life because of bullets fired from the gun of a certified marijuana addict. It’s sad that people want to deflect blame to the gun, when the passion seems to be about drug legalization. He could have stabbed her with a knife.