Arizona Congresswoman shot

[Rifleman62]

Just Google  jared loughner and look what comes up. People who went to school with him were afraid he would bring a gun to school; a professor called 911 while he was in class; he had a cam net temple at his residence; etc, etc.

There is not one shred of evidence that this guy followed politics, talk radio, was in touch with anything.

When Fort Hood happened, the left/media/Dems said it had nothing to do Muslims. When the Congresswomen was shot the left/media (except FOX)/Dems said it has everything to do with "the right wing", talk radio, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin.

It is the left here (I live part of the year (now) in the US) that are chucking crap.

Did you know that through regulation, not legislation, that President Obama is attempting to control freedom of speech? Already did it with the EPA.

Did you know that in the last four years that the Democrats have controlled the Congress (including the last two years of President Bush's Presidency) , the US debt has increased by 5.2 Trillion dollars. ?

The Dems have very quickly proven that they cannot run the USA, and they are pissed.

 

[tomahawk6]

Everyone must have forgotten the lefts assault on Bush even to the extent of making an assassination movie.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is not, particularly, a left-right or culture wars issue, we, the West in general, have had periods where the politics were far more 'toxic' - think Goldwater-Johnson, just for example, but did not become this violent. Nor is it a gun control issue; we have had periods in our North American not too distant past when guns were even more readily available - and some of those periods coincided with periods of 'toxic' politics, too.

What seems, to me, to have changed is that we, suddenly, in this wholly connected 21st century, have lost our self restraint. We seem to have come, finally, to this point:

With apologies to Sloan

I will admit to harbouring some thoughts, on a variety of topics, that are not very mainstream; I have, now and again, been characterized as being somewhat misanthropic; I know how to handle weapons and would have no trouble gaining access to some of them. But I have no inclination to go out and shoot some politician - kick in the ass? yes! shoot? no! - my self restraint protects even Denis Coderre and Mayor Ford, both of whom I see as being remarkably alike in their simple minded demagoguery. But, in this era, everyone seems to think they have a right to give effect to their views - however private those views really ought to be.

I don't care what Mr. Loughner thinks about anything and in a sane, civilized world I ought not to ever hear from or about him or, for that matter, from or about 99.99% of humanity who have nothing of substance to say on any matter at all.

(Let's see, there are 8,700 post on Milnet.ca/Army.ca/Navy ... in December 2010, so I must have thought that less than ten (0.01%) had some substance ... I posted more than ten times, so, evidently, most of my posts lack substance ... yep, sounds about right.  :nod: )

Anyway, Mr. Loughner and tens, probably hundreds of millions of others think that a) I, and others more powerful than I, should listen to and care about what they say; and b) when 'a' doesn't happen people like Mr. Loughner believe they need to take some visible action to get my/your/their attention - so the stupid bugger kills a nine year old child. Loughner is nutty as a fruitcake, but so, I fear is the society in which we all live (or die) together.

By the way, in my opinion, coloured by nearly 70 years of life, self restraint = maturity. People who lack self restraint and a decent sense of the privacy of others are children, even if they are 22, or 42 or 72.

 

[Redeye]

Just Google  jared loughner and look what comes up. People who went to school with him were afraid he would bring a gun to school; a professor called 911 while he was in class; he had a cam net temple at his residence; etc, etc.

Right.  Evidence that if nothing else, he was a deeply disturbed individual.

There is not one shred of evidence that this guy followed politics, talk radio, was in touch with anything.

Well, that's incorrect.  He posted a number of rambly YouTube videos showing he had some interest in politics at the very least.  No one reads Ayn Rand without having some interest in politics, nor Mein Kampf, nor the Communist Manifesto.

When Fort Hood happened, the left/media/Dems said it had nothing to do Muslims. When the Congresswomen was shot the left/media (except FOX)/Dems said it has everything to do with "the right wing", talk radio, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin.

I don't remember that at all.  I remember a lot of supposedly "liberal" media saying that they wouldn't blame "Islam" until there was actual evidence to do so, and when there was, they did.  And to their credit, I'm told even Fox focused merely on the guy's obvious mental problems rather than on any sort of affiliations, which is what the coverage I saw from CNN and MSNBC did.

It is the left here (I live part of the year (now) in the US) that are chucking crap.

Did you know that through regulation, not legislation, that President Obama is attempting to control freedom of speech? Already did it with the EPA.

Did you know that in the last four years that the Democrats have controlled the Congress (including the last two years of President Bush's Presidency) , the US debt has increased by 5.2 Trillion dollars. ?

The Dems have very quickly proven that they cannot run the USA, and they are pissed.

See my post above.  I don't see any overy references to violence in the rhetoric of the mainstream left at least.  And the increases to the debt?  Well, a lot of that is product of Republican policies (unpaid for tax cuts, War in Iraq, etc).  Even though the Dems controlled the Congress after the 06 midterm election they were not exactly in any position to either end the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan nor roll back the Bush tax cuts.  Nor did they orchestrate a massive recession which further cut US tax revenue.  Trying to blame one party or the other for deficits with a myriad of complex causes isn't as easy as who was in office when.  It doesn't work that way.

 

[Redeye]

You mean Death of a President?  A British movie?  Which wasn't so much about the assassination as it was about foreign policy?  That wasn't produced by any political party or organization in the USA, nor promoted by them?  That's not exactly comparable.  Sorry.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/ for those interested.

Everyone must have forgotten the lefts assault on Bush even to the extent of making an assassination movie.

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, that's incorrect.  He posted a number of rambly YouTube videos showing he had some interest in politics at the very least.  No one reads Ayn Rand without having some interest in politics, nor Mein Kampf, nor the Communist Manifesto.

I saw his youtube videos.  There were a number of logically correct arguments; however, the premises were OTL (Out to Lunch).  I don't have access to youtube right now, nor do I care to see them again.  One point I do recall, however, was a bit of anti-establishmentism (if that's a word, compound, hyphenated or otherwise).


As an aside, I have read Ayn Rand only as part of my obligation to do so in my studies of philosophy at the University of Western Ontario.  I want that time back

In the end, this guy was a loon, neither left nor right, just as Hinkley wasn't "left" for firing on Reagan

 

[mariomike]

It is not, particularly, a left-right or culture wars issue, we, the West in general, have had periods where the politics were far more 'toxic' - think Goldwater-Johnson, just for example, but did not become this violent.

I was thinking of Mayor Cermak of Chicago. The Mayor, and four other people, were shot by a guy with a Saturday night special. He was believed to be aiming for the President. The assassin was electrocuted within two weeks of the Mayor's death. 

 

[a_majoor]

I don't recall, and would welcome an example of slings and arrows of that sort of severity coming from left-leaning media figures, political candidates, or prominent figures in leadership/organizational roles of left-leaning parties or organizations/PACs in the USA during the Bush administration.

Here you go:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0109ak.html
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Now people who are trying to hijack the tragedy for their own political purposes (like the NYT article above and the examples below) will discover that there is no "memory hole" in the internet age; blowback will be terrible:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/09/which-democrat-wants-to-hang-the-az-shooting-on-the-tea-party

 

[The Bread Guy]

For the record, here's the federal complaint he's dealing with - first court appearance expected later today:

The United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, Dennis K. Burke, announced today that his office filed a federal complaint against Jared Lee Loughner.  The complaint was signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle Burns in Phoenix.

Loughner is suspected of shooting U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Chief Judge John Roll, Giffords' staff member Gabriel Zimmerman and approximately 16 others Saturday in Tucson, Ariz.

The federal complaint alleges five counts against Loughner:

COUNT 1

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did attempt to kill Gabrielle Giffords, a Member of Congress; in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 351(c).

COUNT 2

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did unlawfully kill Gabriel Zimmerman, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1111.     

COUNT 3

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did unlawfully kill John M. Roll, a U. S. District Court Judge for the District of Arizona, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1111.

COUNT 4

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did, with intent to kill, attempt to kill Pamela Simon, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1113.

COUNT 5

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did, with intent to kill, attempt to kill Ron Barber, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1113.

Loughner will make an initial appearance on the complaint at 2 p.m. Mountain time <1600 Eastern> Monday, Jan. 10, 2011, in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence Anderson at the Sandra Day O’Connor Courthouse in Phoenix in courtroom 302.  He is entitled to a preliminary hearing and a detention hearing.  The court will set a date for both hearings.  Loughner remains in federal custody ....

 

[Redeye]

Thanks.  Your links - well the Malkin one, the only one I really looked at in detail - actually prove my point.  I didn't see anything there that wasn't thins like entertainers spouting their opinions (and I don't recall that any of them were really calls for violence), and the actions of "bloggers" (guess what, there's plenty of contemptible stuff in right wing blogs too).  No statements by election candidates or anything like that.  No calls to arms.  Some strongly polemic stuff (I have to remember MILP - that's awesome), sure.  But not "where ballots fail, bullets work" type stuff.

Here you go:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0109ak.html
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Now people who are trying to hijack the tragedy for their own political purposes (like the NYT article above and the examples below) will discover that there is no "memory hole" in the internet age; blowback will be terrible:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/09/which-democrat-wants-to-hang-the-az-shooting-on-the-tea-party

 

[Rifleman62]

Where was mainstream media on Bush death threats?

By: Michael Barone 03/26/10
Senior Political Analyst
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/where-was-mainstream-media-bush-death-threats

The indefatigable Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, links to a collection of pictures of protesters calling for the death of George W. Bush. Question: Can anyone find a front page story in the Washington Post or New York Times decrying documenting and decrying such vile political discourse? Threats of violence are newsworthy to the news reporters of the Post and Times, it seems, only when they’re directed against Democrats.

You can see the protesters here: http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i.html

Some examples attached.

How soon the left forgets.

 

[Rifleman62]

Stop blaming the Tea Party for the Arizona tragedy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003002.html?hpid=topnews

By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, January 10, 2011

After the attempted car bombing in Times Square last year, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg publicly speculated that the attack had been carried out by "somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health-care bill or something." At the Nation, columnist Robert Dreyfuss wrote that "a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right" was probably behind the bombing. Countless others in the left-wing blogosphere joined the "blame the Tea Party" chorus - until it was disclosed that the perpetrator of the attack was not a Tea Party supporter but a Taliban-trained Islamic radical. Whoops.

Over the weekend, the Tea Party detractors were at it again - this time blaming the movement for the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others. Within hours of the attack, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman had issued his own (admittedly) unfounded verdict: "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was . . . she's a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist." So Tea Party activists are prepared to kill those they cannot defeat at the polls?

Left-wing bloggers and commentators blamed the attack on Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin because she had "targeted" Giffords for defeat during the 2010 elections. The New York Daily News published a column headlined "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district." And an hour after Giffords was shot, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas actually tweeted: "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin." He conveniently failed to mention that his Daily Kos had put a "bull's eye" (their words) on Giffords in 2008 - including her on a list of centrist Democrats who should be "targeted" in Democratic primaries. Mission accomplished, Markos?

Giffords's Arizona colleague, Rep. Raul Grijalva, said the Tea Party was responsible because "[When] you stoke these flames, and you go to public meetings and you scream at the elected officials, you threaten them - you make us expendable you make us part of the cannon fodder. . . . Something's going to happen." Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) echoed this sentiment, declaring, "America must not tolerate . . . inflammatory rhetoric that incites political violence." And Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the attack on the "vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous." Who, exactly, is Sheriff Dupnik accusing of hatred and bigotry? And why is it acceptable to condemn vitriol in politics while contributing to it in the same breath? This is what passes for restoring civility to our nation's discourse?

What is really outrageous is how quickly so many jumped at the opportunity to politicize this tragic shooting - blaming the Tea Party and conservative political rhetoric without a shred of evidence to back those claims. Police are still investigating the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, but it is clear he is a deeply disturbed young man. He had recently been suspended by Tuscon's Pima Community College until he obtained a doctor's certification that "in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the College does not present a danger to himself or others." Students had warned that he might show up in class with a gun. Loughner was rejected by the U.S. Army when he tried to enlist. In a bizarre YouTube rant, he declared: "The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar." Government brainwashing through grammar control is not exactly a driving issue for the Tea Party. Conservatives are no more responsible for Loughner's attempted assassination of Giffords than liberals were for John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.

On Sunday, the New York Times published a front-page story, "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics." Nowhere did it mention the vitriol hurled at Tea Party activists, who are routinely derided to as "tea baggers" and racists, and now stand accused of incitement to murder. If you want an example of the lack of civility plaguing our political discourse, look no further than this weekend's shameful efforts to use this tragedy to demonize the Tea Party.

Marc A. Thiessen, a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the book "Courting Disaster" and writes a weekly column for The Post.

 

[Journeyman]

In other news, the Congresswoman is apparently "OK with simple commands."

I wish I could find a woman like that.



I now return you to:

LEFT  :argument:  RIGHT    :

 

[desert_rat]

or as the crusty PO used to say back in the day..."Not that (left, right takew your pick) YOUR OTHER (left right take your pic) !!!

NOT NOW, NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT RIGHT f$&*G NOW!!

 

[observor 69]

I have nothing to add, the article says it all:

The New York Times

January 9, 2011
A Right to Bear Glocks?
By GAIL COLLINS
In 2009, Gabrielle Giffords was holding a “Congress on Your Corner” meeting at a Safeway supermarket in her district when a protester, who was waving a sign that said “Don’t Tread on Me,” waved a little too strenuously. The pistol he was carrying under his armpit fell out of his holster.

“It bounced. That concerned me,” Rudy Ruiz, the father of one of Giffords’s college interns at the time, told me then. He had been at the event and had gotten a larger vision than he had anticipated of what a career in politics entailed. “I just thought, ‘What would happen if it had gone off? Could my daughter have gotten hurt?’ ”

Giffords brushed off the incident. “When you represent a district — the home of the O.K. Corral and Tombstone, the town too tough to die — nothing’s a surprise,” she said. At the time, it struck me as an interesting attempt to meld crisis control with a promotion of local tourist attractions.

Now, of course, the district has lost more people in a shooting in a shopping center parking lot than died at the gunfight of the O.K. Corral, and the story of the dropped pistol has a tragically different cast.

In soft-pedaling that 2009 encounter, Giffords was doing a balancing act that she’d perfected during her political career as a rather progressive Democrat in a increasingly conservative state. She was the spunky Western girl with a populist agenda mixed with down-home values, one of which was opposition to gun control. But those protesters had been following her around for a while. Her staff members were clearly scared for her, and they put me in touch with Ruiz, who told me the story.

Back then, the amazing thing about the incident in the supermarket parking lot was that the guy with a handgun in his armpit was not arrested. Since then, Arizona has completely eliminated the whole concept of requiring a concealed weapon permit. Last year, it got 2 points out of a possible 100 in the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence state score card, avoiding a zero only because its Legislature has not — so far — voted to force colleges to let people bring their guns on campuses.

Today, the amazing thing about the reaction to the Giffords shooting is that virtually all the discussion about how to prevent a recurrence has been focusing on improving the tone of our political discourse. That would certainly be great. But you do not hear much about the fact that Jared Loughner came to Giffords’s sweet gathering with a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to buy legally because the law restricting their sale expired in 2004 and Congress did not have the guts to face up to the National Rifle Association and extend it.

If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.

But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffords’s 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked.

Loughner’s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is “not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. “What it’s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.”

America has a long, terrible history of political assassinations and attempts at political assassination. What we did not have until now is a history of attempted political assassination that took the lives of a large number of innocent bystanders. The difference is not about the Second Amendment. It’s about a technology the founding fathers could never have imagined.

“If this was the modern equivalent of what Sirhan Sirhan used to shoot Robert Kennedy or Arthur Bremer used to shoot George Wallace, you’d be talking about one or two victims,” said Helmke.

Giffords represents a pragmatic, interest-balancing form of politics that’s out of fashion. But, in that spirit, we should be able to find a way to accommodate the strong desire in many parts of the country for easy access to firearms with sane regulation of the kinds of weapons that make it easiest for crazy people to create mass slaughter. Most politicians won’t talk about it because they’re afraid of the N.R.A., whose agenda is driven by the people who sell guns and want the right to sell as many as possible.

Doesn’t it seem like the least we can do?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB&pagewanted=print

 

[Redeye]

Well, as a compact 9mm, a GLOCK 19 is actually probably a common choice for "personal protection" (though I don't buy the idea that CCW really is beneficial overall if it just increases proliferation of firearms, and I say that as a gun owner).  It's the 33 rounder that is question - though no one caring a 19 for protection would have such an enormous magazine, and some were available even under the sunsetted ban as long as they were "pre-ban" manufacture.

That said, Arizona's (lack of) gun laws is going to get into the spotlight, and that's probably not a bad thing.

 

[Rifleman62]

For your info, the Congresswoman was pro Right to Carry Arms.

The Sheriff who started this off, is a Democrat.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have nothing to add, the article says it all:

Most politicians won’t talk about it because they’re afraid of the N.R.A., whose agenda is driven by the people who sell guns and want the right to sell as many as possible.

Unfortunately it doesn't say it all. It only speaks for the prohibitionists. It doesn't speak for, or mention, the millions of US citizens who believe in, and exercise, their 2nd Amendment right. : The NRA is not composed chiefly of gun makers and dealers as alluded by the anti gun faction as part of thier propoganda. It's strength and backbone are the common everyday folk, the men and women, wives and husbands, who are the majority of that organisation.

 

[vonGarvin]

said, Arizona's (lack of) gun laws is going to get into the spotlight, and that's probably not a bad thing.

Here they are.

 

[muskrat89]

No statements by election candidates or anything like that

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html

"With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

Pima County, AZ Sheriff Clarence Dupnik held a press conference during which he blamed vitriolic political rhetoric for provoking the mentally unstable, and lamented Arizona's becoming the "mecca of prejudice and bigotry." .

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—"lock and load"—and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

Jared Lee Loughner, the man suspected of a shooting spree that killed a Federal Judge and critically wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had left a trail of online videos in which he railed against the government. WSJ's Neil Hickey reports.

.American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill. "

So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?"
More at the link, above...