Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is somebody I have known and admired for many years. She was a truly amazing, brilliant and compassionate woman. It will be a while before we know what remains of her mind. Let's hope for the best and pray for her if you do that.

At this point, the political leanings of her would be assassin remain in question. He clearly had mental health issues that might have been treatable. However, the republican owned and operated Arizona state legislature has repeatedly attacked funding for mental health programs and medications because they care more about tax cuts than public safety. At the same time, the republican tactics of fear and hatred drive these lunatics into unspeakable acts.

Wake up America! We need to keep the crazy people under control and get rid of these damned republicans that serve their wealthy masters while blathering about "the will of the American people" for whom they do not give a shit.

All it would have took to keep the guy from buying a gun is if he had ever once been brought in on a simple 72 hour psyche hold. Seems like the guy has been running around, well known to the police, acting nuts for years and they never even once dragged him in for a few nights of observation. It would seem prudent to me if the cops would occasionally round up all the crazy violent people they know of and have a doc take a brief look at them. Even if they were all out out again a couple of nights later, at least they wouldn't pass a background check. It looks like the local cops really dropped the ball on that one.

The part about how this is all really the fault of Republicans just sounds absolutely silly. Is their ANYTHING that isn't Republicans fault? ;-)

Ross Douthat wrote a thoughtful piece about this for the NYT. I invite everyone to compare his clarity with Hot4asses unsupportable outburst.

Beefjerky1 failed to leave a link, but he is probably refering to this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10douthat.html?_r=1

The Southern Poverty Law Center also published an insightful analysis of the nutjob:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/01/09/who-is-jared-lee-loughner/

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/tragedy-in-arizona

There were plenty of other incidents that should have resulted in psychological evaluation of Loughner, but that capability barely exist in Arizona thanks to republican budget attacks. National republicans have consistently opposed every democratic initiative to treat mental health care as seriously as physical health care.

Gangs have always preyed upon mentally weak, disillusioned and violent personalities to do their dirty work. This is as true for the neo-nazis as for crips and bloods and minutemen. This killer seems to have acted alone, so it is not clear what drove his anger or why he wanted to kill everybody that stopped by the event.

It is easy for Beefjerky to remain detached since he never had a hug from Gabrielle and never known her murdered assistant Gabe Zimmerman. It is also doubtful that jerky understands what republicans have done to stir up hate in Arizona or how damaging these creeps will be to our entire nation if they gain control. The last remaining humanist republicans are entrenched incumbents. It is time to see the new batch of creeps for what they are: corporate whores and hate mongers.

The real problem is nuts on the left that want all your money, and tell you what is politically correct for your life. Of course all the nuts on the right spend all of your money anyway, want to have the church tell you how to run your life, and have god in your bedroom. In many ways, really hard to tell the difference.

In reality, there are not many people in the center that would just try to make things work, and not talk all of your money at the same time.

MM

There is just no connection between republicans and these murders. None. Insisting that there is wont in any way benefit the causes you seem so passionate about, hot4ass. Convincing political moderates of the correctness of your positions is the way to electoral success in this country so with that in mind you might want to consider dropping this type of argument.

I am going to side with Hot4ass2 on this issue. I am saddened but NOT shocked by what happened here. It was only a matter of time before some crazy would do something like this.

Pallin can run, but she really cannot hide from what her words have done. She can try to change the meaning, of her gun sight targets and now she calls them "surveyor marks" but really, when you are talking about taking up arms, and "don't back down. RELOAD!" It is easy to see how a mentally unstable person could take direction from that kind of talk, and this guy did take her advise and was trying to "reload"

As far as blame goes, his parents should have done something. Did they know he had weapons in the house? Did they try to get him any mental health help, or did they just put their heads in the sand?

I still haven't forgiven the Democrats for provoking Hinckley to shoot Reagan. You monsters. Have you no remorse?

Pleeeeeessssee explain to me how Pailin is in any way, even slightly, culpable even in the tiniest way for the actions of Loughner.

Did you FAIL to read and understand the second paragraph above your post???

I really hope that Pallin runs for president in 2012. How would she react to people putting out adds and bumper stickers with a "surveyor mark" imposed over her face, and then have people show up to her public appearances, with pistols tucked in their belts and rifles with scopes hanging off their shoulders??

Even an IT guy should be able to put 2 and 2 together without using a calculator LOL

IAS,

During the election period, she put on her web site a list of Democrats that she wanted gone. For each Democrat she placed a gun scope cross hairs over the photo. That is the connection. I cannot say whether killer saw her web site, or whether somehow it influenced his actions but that is the connection.

I read an interesting article about the political climate in America. They liken it to the 1950's and McCarthyism. I was not alive during that period but from what I read, I can see certain similarities. Of course, this period ended badly when a liberal president Kennedy spelled the end of McCarthyism but then again he ended up dead for reasons that still no one knows today.

Beefjerky,

For 2 solid years, all we've heard from the Right is "stop them, they're evil marxists/communists/socialists/fascists led by that stinking muslim/african/foreigner/black, they're destroying America and must be stopped at all costs." And suddenly, someone goes out and tries to assassinate one of the Democrats singled out, along with a few dozen others, even more than the rest of the Dems. And there's no connection?

That is like saying if someone shot Glen Beck, it wasn't because of his political turd droppings.

There's been a 300% increase in the last two years in threats to Representatives and Senators, and a 400% increase in threats against the President. You don't see a relationship between that and teabaggers?

Put it this way - even if Loughlin wasn't influenced by Faux News and the Republicans, why did pretty much everyone - Dem and Republican - think so when the news first hit? I didn't think "wow, random crazy guy". I immediately thought it was a whacked-out teabagger with a copy of Sarah Palin's book in his hand and a pistol in the other.

So, why did everyone leap to that conclusion? Because Republicans have gotten so bad the last two years, we all expected something like this to eventually happen at the hands of one of their nuts.

The political environment the last two years does not even compare in terms of vicious speech to when Reagan was President.

None of us know (yet) and may never know the full panoply of motivations the Arizona nutbag had. But it is not unreasonable to entertain seriously the notion that prominent Republican politicians and commentators demonizing Democrats and talking about "second amendment remedies," putting elected officials in crosshairs (including Giffords), and so forth could have contributed to a nutjob doing this.

It is a sign of the times that the Republicans try to disassociate themselves from ANY POSSIBILITY their incendiary rhetoric could have contributed by stating in substance "he was a nutbag and that is why he did this." Well, who do they think would respond in this way to their rhetoric about second-amendment remedies, and so forth, the local highly-respected church deacon? No, it is precisely the nutbags and crazies who would take this rhetoric to extreme actions.

I suppose if the situation were that the Republicans were camping outside Giffords office every day chanting "kill her, kill her, kill her," and some nutjob then tried to do this, they could always come back with "you have no proof of any relationship between our words and the insane actions of a nutbag." And I have no doubt there would be some who would believe them.

Now it is true what happened here corresponds only about 50 percent to the just-mentioned hypothetical example; they were not, for example, camping outside her office when they suggested second-amendment remedies as acceptable political action, put her in "crosshairs" and generally polluted political discussion with violent rhetoric. As above we don't know the full panoply of influences operating on Loughner, but my gut tells me there is a real good chance that this falls under the "actions and words have consequences" rubric, and the actions and words I am speaking about have come from the extreme-right (aka the Republican party) the last two years.

Then again, I may be wrong and we'll find out Loughner had just seen Taxi Driver before the shooting and that was his sole motivator. But if something like that turns out to be the case, I still would be interested in knowing why if the previous rhetoric could not have possibly contributed to this outcome, Palin's office is now, for example, making the ludicrous claim the crosshairs were surveyor's markers? Could it be a case of "thou doth protest too much?"

It has also been suggested to me that perhaps in Loughner's mind, the dog next door told him to do it. But, if this were the case, I clearly would have preferred that he shoot the dog (no offense to dogs), which is what his nutjob mind might have told him to do in the absence of "Republican guidance."

(Message edited by Laguy on January 12, 2011)

In case there is any confusion, my first sentence in the post above was meant to convey that there is much more hateful speech now than when Reagan was President. And I agree with Bluestraveller's noting of certain similarities to the McCarthy era.

When I analyze the previous two attacks on public figures. The most recent is Reagan in 1981. The end result was that the attack had nothing to do with politics and that the guy was just a nut bag.

Then before that George Wallace was running for president and he was hot also. Again, there was no connection between politics and the shooting other than Wallace was famous.

If you go back to the Kennedy shooting, we still do not know but most guess that it was politically motivated and perhaps the McCarthy supporters.

I guess this clip goes under the category of "what does she know?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4

And there is also this, which I find of interest, even if perhaps a bit overstated:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#41045244

(Message edited by LAguy on January 12, 2011)

A more "user-friendly" version of the second link above (I guess it is not easy to add a link as an edit, as I attempted to do above):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#41045244

Odds are very good that the heightened political rhetoric from both sides - left and right - did not play a significant role in this event. However, it also could not have helped.

The biggest problem in American politics today is that there are too many Republicans; too many Democrats and not enough Americans.

Both sides need to tone it down before political motivated shootings become the norm rather than the exception. On the other hand, given the foxhole mentality of both sides, perhaps more political shooting WOULD be a good thing. At least we get some new faces.

EA

What an idiot. Particularly to post that (lame joke or not) in light of recent events.

For 2 solid years, all we've heard from the Right is "stop them, they're evil marxists/communists/socialists/fascists led by that stinking muslim/african/foreigner/black, they're destroying America and must be stopped at all costs." And suddenly, someone goes out and tries to assassinate one of the Democrats singled out, along with a few dozen others, even more than the rest of the Dems. And there's no connection?

(Cat, there is no connection.)

That is like saying if someone shot Glen Beck, it wasn't because of his political turd droppings.

(If someone shoots Glen Beck and it turns out it had nothing to do with his turd droppings then yes that is what it would be like saying.)

There's been a 300% increase in the last two years in threats to Representatives and Senators, and a 400% increase in threats against the President. You don't see a relationship between that and teabaggers?

( I see a relationship between these stats and enhanced stats gathering and a very poor economy. I dont think these things would change if Repubs were in the majority and held the presidency.)

Put it this way - even if Loughlin wasn't influenced by Faux News and the Republicans, why did pretty much everyone - Dem and Republican - think so when the news first hit? I didn't think "wow, random crazy guy". I immediately thought it was a whacked-out teabagger with a copy of Sarah Palin's book in his hand and a pistol in the other.

You were wrong to leap to the conclusion that it was a whacked out teabagger. Pretty much everyone didnt think this way - only those predisposed by viewing events through a particular idealogical lense made this error.

So, why did everyone leap to that conclusion? Because Republicans have gotten so bad the last two years, we all expected something like this to eventually happen at the hands of one of their nuts.

(There doesnt seem to be much difference in the political rhetoric of the parties. Both sides say things that could be interpreted as menacing. It just depends on your own perspective what you will have a heightened sensitivity to and what you will ignore or discount.

As I said to Hot4ass, its a mistake to try to tie this unrelated set of murders to Republican rhetoric. It cant be persuasively done and it just makes the people who are trying to do it look unreasonable in the eyes of moderates and undecided voters who ultimately decide elections.)

Sorry, I dont know how to use the quote function so I just put my responses in parentheses.

Being fellow mongers obviously doesn't align political feelings. I know that the default position of many lefties is to blame this on Ms. Palin, but surely there are some liberals that see that this is a nut case murder and that political rhetoric on the left is also filled with violent metaphors?

It goes much broader than Palin; I don't think anyone is blaming her exclusively for the spreading of hateful speech.

The political rhetoric on the left (or in the middle) is not filled on a daily or nearly daily basis with violent metaphors. This false equivalency being circulated by the fascist right in an effort to absolve themselves is pathetic.

A grand total of four Representatives and Senators since 1787 have been assassinated. Not a lot in 223 years. Five others were wounded, at the same time, by Puerto Ricans in the Capitol attack in 1954. So, in all, prior to last weekend, five attacks against thousands of Congressmen in the history of the Congress. So, what are the chances that, after a nasty campaign where the teabagger Republican smeared Giffords as unpatriotic, evil, etc, the Palin cross-hairs, the rhetoric in Arizona against illegal immigration, nullification, etc, that none of that had any impact on Loughlan? That there's absolutely no connection whatsoever? After her opponent invited supporters to come out and shoot a machine gun with him, this was a totally separate event? That Republican rhetoric in no way encouraged him to act?

Now after the facts have been published on this subject, the facts clearly show out of touch with reality some of our club hombre members are.

I think this is only the beginning, times are a changing.

I do not know with any certainty whether this nut job had any political motivations. The hard evidence does not suggest one way or the other. I personally believe that the lack of hard evidence indicates that it was a lone nut job same as the Reagan assassination attempt.

I do believe that this event is a game changer for Republicans. I do believe that some Americans will connect between the fact that Gifford is a Democrat and the Fox/Palin rhetoric as is being done in this discussion. This will be enough to sway the 2012 election in Obama's favor. this event hurts Palin's presidential hopes since she had Gifford in the cross hairs on her web site. In 2012, it will be a frequent question she will have to answer independent of the truth.

There appears to be some confusion concerning the issue of whether the nut job had any "political motivations." If by "political motivations" one means "political objectives" I do not believe that is the relevant question.

The relevant question IMHO is what influences led him to believe it was acceptable to try to kill a member of Congress. Exposure to the type of right-wing hate rhetoric that has infected this country the last few years could certainly contribute to an unstable individual's belief that killing a politician is okay, perhaps even commendable. And it could do this even if the unstable individual did not have a specific political objective.

So sorry guys, but even if Loughner did not keep a large collection of Republican campaign buttons or literature in his bedroom, or didn't have a tattoo of Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle imprinted on his ass, it doesn't mean exposure to what often seems like all-pervasive hateful political rhetoric did not contribute to what he did.

I was really hoping that Palin would be nominated for president by the Republicans, I think she blew her chances of getting the Jewish vote with that infomercial of hers today. Why the hell would she use the term "blood libel"?

With her as the Republican nominee it should be an easy race for Obama.

Something like 70 percent of the Jewish vote goes to the Democrats, so not to worry. Palin is still in the running for the Republican nomination (but watch out for smiley devilman Hucklebee and can't say a sentence without including the words "Ronald Reagan" Romney).

On the other hand, be careful what you wish for. Many of us wanted unelectable extremist Ronald Reagan to get the Republican nomination in 1980. Next thing we knew, we were giving seed money to Bin Laden and his buddies in furtherance of "winning the cold war," and selling arms to the ayatollahs in Iran.

(Message edited by LAguy on January 12, 2011)

I agree, if she were to win a presidential election, it would be a frightful 4 years for us.

I just watched Palin's speech on the Arizona shootings again. "Don't blame me" is the central issue. Along with a lot of damage control, but this woman has a serious disconnect.

This whole trajedy would make a lot more sense if we learned that Loughner had Sarah Palin posters all over his bedroom walls or if he attended tea party rallies. However, news reports indicate that he did not even vote in the last election.

Anecdotal evidence indicates Hitlers book was one of his favorites and he sure as hell looks like a skinhead. However, Southern Poverty Law Center did not believe the fact that Giffords is Jewish was driving his hate. Who knows what we will learn when his internet browsing history is entered into evidence.

If Loughner was driven with hatred towards liberal Democrats it would have made a lot more sense for him to go after Raul Grijalva, but he chose to go after a woman who was formerly republican and whose politics are slightly right of center.

I do not remember the rhetoric being all that nasty when Reagan was elected. Ronald had a disarming folksy charisma and Jimmy Carter was far too decent of a man to engage in vicious attacks. Hinckley was so fucking clueless that he would have shot any president to impress Jody.

Even if we assume that the vitriol did not drive nutjob Loughner into action, we should agree that readily available treatment for mental illness is essential for the protection of our society.

We should also agree that there is no valid reason for any civilian weapon to support rapid reload clips or to carry more than four rounds. This would not have saved Gabby, but it sure would have reduced the carnage that followed.

(Message edited by Hot4ass2 on January 13, 2011)

LA, well put. My comments on the number of assassinations was meant to say that it is an extremely rare event. With the current nasty, hate-filled rhetoric from the teabaggers/Republicans about "2nd amendment solutions" and so on, to say that it's purely coincidental that there would be an assassination attempt at the same time is simply not logical.

But how do you keep a weapon out of the hands of a mentally ill person in the first place. The current laws were followed, he did not break the law when he purchased that weapon.

As a gun owner myself, I think the gun laws need to change. Perhaps requiring a face to face interview with a law officer, similar to what those of us that have a SENTRI card have done, is in order.

The problem with gun control right now is that the NRA sees things in pure 2-choice, black and white. Either everything is legal, or you're violating the Constitution. Very stupid. Then again, I know plenty of fellow Dems who, if they had their way, would outlaw all guns in 100% of the cases.

The logic is in the middle. If you're a convicted felon, all guns should be 100% illegal. As far as for non-felons, if you're ever been institutionalized for mental issues, all guns should be 100% illegal.

If not, then a lot of guns should be legal for everyone, but a lot of guns should be 100% illegal. I see no valid reason why anyone needs an AR-15 or AK-47 or any type of machine pistol or submachine gun. No one needs any modern firearm with a caliber at .50 or greater. No one needs a 100-round magazine for a rifle or a 30-round clip for a pistol. Of course, the NRA equates owning a room full of machine guns to your typical hunting gun owner who may have a few shotguns, a few rifles and maybe a pistol or two. Or your home defense gun owner who has a shotgun or a pistol.

Even someplace that has extremely restrictive gun laws like California it is extremely easy for for felons to get guns. Gun control simply does not work. Furthermore, I am quite certain Loughner could have, and probably would have produced just as high of a body count with a well aimed Buick and he did with a gun. Look what Al-Qaeda did with a box cutter. Even if you eliminated guns entirely you would not significantly curtail the damage a random nut job can do.

The first walmart he went to refused to sell him ammunition. Had the second one done the same thing, he would not have had the means to kill all of those people.

California is adjacent to Arizona, where the gun shows (operating under the gun show loophole) stock California criminal gangs. Gun control on a state-by-state basis (or city-by-city basis) is of only limited utility. So long as we have porous state borders, the only type of gun control that would have any chance of much success would be national gun control minus such things as the gun show loophole.

Having said this, in the U.S. the cat is basically out of the bag insofar as guns are concerned. There just are too many in the U.S., and too many in the hands of criminals. Whereas gun control works quite well in places like Japan, it would take generations to change the baseline level of gun ownership among the public in the United States, most significantly including those members of the public who are criminals. I personally would still like to see more regulation on a national level than we currently have (along the lines of mandatory background checks that can not easily be circumvented, and so forth) but even if more regulations were to pass (which is highly questionable) this would not change things much.

Put another way, insofar as guns are concerned, we are fucked. There are already too many in the hands of people who should not have them. On the other hand, at the margins better national regulation might make it more difficult for a nut job to wake up on a given day and say, "hey, I'm gonna buy me a gun this morning, and then shoot a bunch of people this afternoon."

LAGuy writes, "What an idiot. Particularly to post that (lame joke or not) in light of recent events."

I assume you're speaking to me. Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities, but please explain one thing. How is this event, tragic as it is, any more tragic than the hundreds of other shootings across the country every day? Simply because it happened to a politician? I don't buy it.

While I feel sorry for all involved, I can't help but feel that those people in politics, both on the left and right, who refuse to follow the greatest principal that the country was founded upon - compromise - are to blame for incidents like this. I firmly believe that the only solution to the current political ills in the US is term limits. While my off-the-cuff response may have indicated to those who cannot read past the obvious words on the page, that I wish politicians would be shot, it is far from the case. I do believe that we need an entire generation of new political faces to guide the country out of the failed partisan politics that so many writers in this thread show.

In the future, in order to continue to isolate yourself from mainstream middle-of-the-road thoughts, you may want to ignore my posts.

EA

Anyone who would write in response to the Tucson shootings "perhaps more political shooting WOULD be a good thing" and then claim to represent "mainstream middle-of-the-road thoughts" is delusional.

And as I noted earlier, but El Apodo apparently chose to ignore, his statement "perhaps more political shooting WOULD be a good thing" was offensive irrespective of whether it was a "lame joke or not."

Only an idiot would post such a thing in this thread or think it was somehow amusing.

(Message edited by LAguy on January 13, 2011)

Like Democrats have never used cross hairs in political ads...here is one in Arizona on a tv ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdJWNA65oY&feature=youtu.be


Obama...."if they bring a knife we bring a gun"



Seems to me this was the real cause for the shooting....

The “die bitch” note found in Loughner’s house after the shootings was written on a letter from Giffords that thanked him for attending a 2007 campaign event where he questioned her, investigators from the sheriff’s office have said



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-12/arizona-suspect-loughner-wrote-die-cops-on-giffords-letter-police-say.html

Beefjerky and crew, since Beachman just entered the fray to agree with you, clearly you can see that your position is wrong since you now have the board's biggest fucktard in your corner.

"...are to blame for incidents like this..." - How absurd! Nobody but the shooter is to blame for the incident...he is a sick delusional individual, whack job. Unfortunately too many of those around!

Sorry, but no sane person would ever do anything like this regardless of all the bullshit being thrown around in the media or political party.

I just bought a new gun two days ago, this time a high powered pellet gun (for squirrel hunting) to go along with my .270 rifle, .380 Ruger LCP, Glock .40, Taurus 9mm stainless (made in Brazil), Ruger 10-22 carbine and a Ruger Mini-14 .223. Love love love my guns. I just dont know why.

Regardless, gun laws wont change anything in regards to the criminal element. They are completely illegal for civilians to own in Brazil and yet they are readily available. The criminal gangs are well armed. Nope, gun control wont solve this problem.

Although as I stated above I don't see much hope that more extensive gun control in the U.S. would help things much, I'm not sure I would use that beacon of effective and just law enforcement Brazil to support this point of view. There are less corrupt countries with a greater capacity and will to enforce their own laws (including gun regulation) like Japan where gun control seems to be very effective.

Having said this, Brazil (in addition to its problem with law enforcement generally) may also have the same problem as the U.S.: so long as there already are tons of guns out there, passing gun control legislation is not going to cure this.

(Message edited by laguy on January 14, 2011)

I am so so so nervous! Should GCL name be turned over to the authorities? We all know he has been mentally imbalanced for a long time!

If GCL is against gun control, them I'm definitely for it. In fact, I'm call ATF this minute and I'm sure that after I explain who he is and his sordid history, they'll be beating down his door within the hour.

Thanks Cat! Please include all the details and if they have to transport him he loves sitting in the middle seat of the plane with the person in front totally reclined. Also:
* His degenerate history. enough said!
* His love for transsexuals?
* His love for women feet?
* He was arrested and in prison in Brazil.
* How he loves cavity searches both giving and receiving.
* Very serious drinking problem!
* Sexual Pervert!
and oh so much more........................

So long GCL - I hope you like your new cell and your cell mate BRUNO!
Hemp -

GCL has guns? Now there's a surprise!

#11 of the 69 reasons I don't set foot in Alabama.

"National republicans have consistently opposed every democratic initiative to treat mental health care as seriously as physical health care."

Just want to note that with a few exceptions, this is absolutely true. Efforts to gain parity for MH with other health care services has been consistently opposed by Republican leadership for 20 years. One exception is former Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) who was a lone voice among Repubs for enhancing MH care coverage.

Perhaps BeachWorm would go away if he got the mental health care that he so deperately needs?

I'll be dammed, photos surface of Loughner teabagging his Glock. So I guess he IS a teabagger after all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/jared-lee-loughner-photos-g-string_n_809329.html

Great to see you are relying on the Huffingtonpost for your news IAS. There is hope after all!

Loughner proves nuts aren't always found in a scrotum.

Even the Army rejected him!!

Lack of availability of mental health services in many states is a contributing factor to these kinds of incidents. According to a recent study of mental health services in each state, AZ was next to last in availability of adequate MH services, and had recently cut funding for services further. As many states are dealing with severe budget deficits, unfortunately mh services are being cut. State legislators need to hear from constituents that despite the budget crisis, these kids of services are vital and cannot be messed with.