Arizona congresswoman shot

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

I know, next you are going to tell me that you are in favor of making it mandatory that everyone carry a concealed gun!

That would be unconstitutional. I'm merely in favor of following the dictates of the constitution or using proper procedures to change them.

I'm not going to respond to your baiting or your irrational (emotional?) responses; you are entitled to your opinion - right or wrong.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

OTOH, I don't see any legitimate reason for a private citizen to own an assault weapon like the 9mm Glock. Those kinds of firearms have one purpose only. To slaughter dozens of people in the blink of an eye.

I see you are a victim of the Brady misinformation campaign. A 9mm Glock is a self-defense weapon, NOT an assault weapon by ANY definition. And legislation has limited auto-loading firearm magazines to contain only 10 rounds, not dozens, and not even in a blink of an eye.

You are unaware of the facts, and are promoting lies designed to misinform.

[matapule]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

The Glock 19 (as originally reported as the firearm used), is actually a "COMPACT" version of the 9mm Glock 17 that most law enforcement agencies use. The G17 standard capacity is 17+1, and the 19 is 15+1 (big deal). Manufacturers created the option of a 19- or 33-round hicap..

And legislation has limited auto-loading firearm magazines to contain only 10 rounds, not dozens, and not even in a blink of an eye.

You are unaware of the facts, and are promoting lies designed to misinform.

You and BJD need to get on the same page. BJD says as many as 33 rounds, you say a maximum of 10. The reprots I read said the shooter had a magazine with 33 rounds in it, used all those rounds, and was attempting to put in another clip when he was subdued. 33 rounds is hardly a self defense weapon!

Care to clarify about being unaware of the facts. I know I am unaware, so enlighten me.

[Ron Whitfield]

The lie/deny crowd have misrepresented the killer as a lefty because he... smoked pot and posted a manisfeto

Here's Sarah's video http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...m-blood-libel/ making a fool of herself again.

[Kalalau]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Poor Sarah! She is the real victim in this tragedy. The death and suffering of the victims, the loss of loved ones really doesn't compare to the cruelty inflicted against Poor Sarah by The Liberal Media, criticizing her for innocently placing targets in her political ads. My heart bleeds for Poor Sarah. Truly, this is a disgraceful tragedy.

But seriously...the memorial service seemed a bit weird to me. All the cheering and clapping seemed kind of inappropriate. A memorial service to me seems a bit quieter, more sombre, respectful. I did get choked up when the President prayed that this country always be worthy of the ideals held by Christina Green and the children like her.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

You and BJD need to get on the same page. BJD says as many as 33 rounds, you say a maximum of 10. The reprots I read said the shooter had a magazine with 33 rounds in it, used all those rounds, and was attempting to put in another clip when he was subdued. 33 rounds is hardly a self defense weapon!

While I certainly take issue with BJD's rather selective notion on what the Bill of Rights entails, I give credit to him for at least displaying credible knowledge on what he is defending.

Here is the latest info on the investigation of the Tucson massacre:

Nineteen people were hit in the mass shooting Saturday on Tucson's Northwest Side, said a spokesman for the Pima County Sheriff's Department on Tuesday.

The shooting left 6 dead and 13 wounded, said Deputy Jason Ogan.

The weapon used by accused shooter Jared Lee Loughner was a Glock 19, Ogan said. He said the gun had an extended magazine that holds 31 rounds.

"Loughner had an additional extended magazine and two standard magazines in his possession. A total of 31 spent rounds were recovered from the scene," Ogan said.

Most Glock high-capacity extended magazines on the market hold 30 rounds, but the shooter may have had one round in the gun's chamber.

Since this is an ongoing investigation, this info is subject to change. But based on what authorities have now stated, Loughner emptied out a high capacity 30 round magazine in his Glock, plus the one bullet that was already in the chamber. (All this, in addition to carrying at least one spare magazine that he was about to load, before being subdued.)

Both the standard 15 round magazine (which came included with the Glock 19 pistol) and the highcap 30 round magazine that Loughner purchased at Walmart would not have been legally sold to him if the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban was still in effect. (The legislation expired in 2004.)

SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

You and BJD need to get on the same page. BJD says as many as 33 rounds, you say a maximum of 10. The reprots I read said the shooter had a magazine with 33 rounds in it, used all those rounds, and was attempting to put in another clip when he was subdued. 33 rounds is hardly a self defense weapon!

Care to clarify about being unaware of the facts. I know I am unaware, so enlighten me.

I believe I was unaware that some jusidictions permitted 10+ rounds per clip. This may be true, or if not it shows the inadequate effect of laws upon actions. In fact, if other states allow 33-round magazines, they can be shipped into Hawaii, as well! Criminals don't obey the laws, just us fools.

I don't know Arizona laws, just Hawaii laws. We are limited to 10 round clips.

Kudos to the person who subdued the shooter (without a weapon of her own!) Goes to show - guns are NOT the ulimate weapon - the mind is!

K-den

[Kaonohi]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Poor Sarah! She is the real victim in this tragedy. The death and suffering of the victims, the loss of loved ones really doesn't compare to the cruelty inflicted against Poor Sarah by The Liberal Media, criticizing her for innocently placing targets in her political ads. My heart bleeds for Poor Sarah. Truly, this is a disgraceful tragedy.

But seriously...the memorial service seemed a bit weird to me. All the cheering and clapping seemed kind of inappropriate. A memorial service to me seems a bit quieter, more sombre, respectful. I did get choked up when the President prayed that this country always be worthy of the ideals held by Christina Green and the children like her.

Oh come on!

The real victims were those innocents who were shot, wounded or killed by a deranged person who imagined that he could make changes in government by executing small-time politicians.

Wakey uppey! Death or wounding of public servants is an act of a crazed personality - doesn't matter if it's guns, swords, knives or anthrax, killing politicians is NOT an answer, not ANY FOOKING answer!

We have a system to replace inadequate politicians, anyone who makes their own system is none less than a terrorist.

[tutusue]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

The news reported tonight that the first Walmart Loughner attempted to buy ammo, he was refused because the store clerk felt he was acting strange. Another hero in this tragedy. He went to another Walmart. The rest is history.

[Kalalau]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Here is an example of Tea Party political tactics and political values.

Violence erupted at San Diego's Golden Hall election. Congressman Bob Filner was attacked by Republican Challenger Nick Popaditch and his supporters.
Filner, a Southwestern College reporter and Filner supporters were set upon by a mob of about 100, led by Popaditch.

Filner and student journalist Monika Tuncibilek were trapped with their backs to a pillar, surrounded by Popaditch supporters.

At least one member of his entourage was punched in the face. Filner was shoved and spat at as he grabbed the arm Tuncibilek to keep her from being assaulted or injured.

Popaditch led an angry mob that called Filner a "communist" and chanted "papa-ditch" then later changed the chant to "Bob's-a-bitch."

Popaditch supporters followed Popaditch as he rushed at Filner and his staff as soon as he entered Golden Hall. Filner supporters were overwhelmed by people holding Popaditch signs.

Filner was surrounded with his back against a wall as he attempted to make his way to one of the news stations for an interview. Popaditch darted across the hall to get in front of Filner and confronted him.

A Popaditch supporter said the incident was only "one candidate trying to give another a handshake" and that "one ran, one followed." Filner supporters called the Popaditch camp "childish."

At one point a Popaditch supporter punched a member of Filner's camp while Popaditch was seen smiling about 10 feet away. Police eventually established control over the crowd. There were no arrests.

Filner won re-election to the 51st Congressional District with 60 percent of the vote.

This is a relatively restrained account, however. In the interview, Filner connected what he experienced that night with his training in the Civil Rights Movement in how to protect himself when being attacked. And well he should have.

The East County Magazine reported:

POPADITCH INCITES MOB, CURSES AT FILNER AND REPORTEDLY PUSHES OPPONENT AT ELECTION CENTRAL
By Miriam Raftery
ECM reporter Mary Paulet contributed to this report
November 5, 2010 (San Diego) - In the sore loser category, Republican Nick Popaditch wins hands down.

Multiple credible news sites have reported that after Democratic Congressman Bob Filner was declared winner by a 20-point margin, a mob of Popaditch supporters, including Tea Party and white supremacist members, cornered and spat on Popaditch's opponent, Filner. Video by the Chula Vista Star News reveals that Popaditch cursed at Filner, called him a liar, and made no efforts to calm down an increasingly virulent mob that forced Filner out of Golden Hall's Election Central and into the lobby. Filner told CityBeat that he was shoved by Popaditch.

"Last night, Nick Popadith made Election Central a threatening and unsafe place to be," CityBeat's Dave Masse wrote. Mayor Jerry Sanders' security detail ultimately rescued the Congressman from the mob, CityBeat reported.

East County Magazine reporter Mary Paulet interviewed a witness, Robin Buse, during the altercation, whose statement confirms Filner's allegation. Buse told ECM that she saw Popaditch push Filner. "I ran and got the cops," added Buse, a Filner supporter. Others, fearful for their safety, confirmed assaults by Popaditch and his supporters.

A second witness, who asked not to be named, said she also saw pushing and cussing. She added that a Popaditch supporter also pushed a Filner supporter. East County Magazine editor Miriam Raftery, also at the scene, spoke with yet another distraught person who said "Popaditch just went after Filner." Raftery photographed police officers moving in to calm down the mob.

A Southwestern College Sun reporter said that a Popaditch supporter punched a Filner supporter in the face, that Popaditch backers spat on Filner supporters and chanted "Bob's a bitch."

The San Diego Union-Tribune quotes Filner as saying "It was like a mob scene...there was violence in their eyes."

And CityBeat's Last Blog On Earth reported that one of Popaditch's supporters had bragged about his role in the confrontation on white supremacist Stormfront website:

The video contains amateur footage of the Popaditch Experience at Election Central, followed by images of insurgents, militias, the Irish Republican Army, a whole lot of AK-47s (Aurick lists researching AKs and revisionist history as among his interests on his "about me") and Mel Gibson in Braveheart (wtf). ?It also makes reference to snipers and is accompanied by this call to action (emphasis added):
When political and diplomatic negotiations fail then we have only violent rebellion left to insure our people are fairly represented. We may have to force our government to respect our demands at gunpoint!
This election was a complete fraud for those of you that still can't see the obvious and we have almost exausted all peaceful negotiation with this tyrannical governement, so what is left? Total war is all that's left to us! I saw the begining of it last night and so did all of you, but most of you do not realize it yet. This is a game they let us win a few seats in the House but this is not in any way a decisive victory and the tyrants are still in power! Now is the time we begin to force them to recogzise our power, and we've only just begun to fight. We have rebel friends around the world too that will join us in our eternal struggle for freedom.
Later, Aurick came back and added this comment to his video:
At frames 204 -206 you can see Filner cowardly hiding his back against the support beam as trys to avoid Nick Popaditch and all of our questions we have for the weasle. It? iwas a joy to see him as the coward I always knew he was, if you couold see it any better it would be obvious he's afraid and probably for the first time in his privileadged litte rich boy life.

As is so typical, this two-bit punk has no idea who Filner is. Tea Party violence is not "exuberance", is not "isolated", is not "incidental." This is who they are. Filner and Lewis and many others still alive have seen this before up close and personal in the 1960s. This is violent white supremacy.
And no, there is no such thing as "reverse-white-supremacy."


1

0 comments

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

You and BJD need to get on the same page. BJD says as many as 33 rounds, you say a maximum of 10. The reprots I read said the shooter had a magazine with 33 rounds in it, used all those rounds, and was attempting to put in another clip when he was subdued. 33 rounds is hardly a self defense weapon!

Care to clarify about being unaware of the facts. I know I am unaware, so enlighten me.

Here is the page that appears to have been missed. It's in the same paragraph as the very-prominent "DUH."

However in states like Massachusetts, California and Hawaii (the ones that still held out when the Ban was repealed), they still only allow 10-round magazines.

The Glock manufacturer (easy one: Glock.com) gives technical specs for those who don't know them already.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

THAT is exactly the kind of vitriolic speech that needs to STOP!

Is HT Williams-Sonoma having a clearance sale on black pots and kettles? (I prefer stainless steel, personally, to match my kitchen appliances.) There are already several threads and posts that spew "vitriol" towards various parties (whether it's making fun of their party name or individuals, or groups of people of an opposing group or movement), and yet this appears to be a ping-pong solitaire game which is fine for some but not for others. Where's the First Amendment thumping and accusations of restricting free speech? Too busy complaining about #2 while getting #1'd on.

Originally Posted by bjd392
Unlike some of you guys who blindly spew hatred to political parties,

Since a good portion of each others' posts always seem to piecemeal portions of statements to spin them into something else that has very little to do with the whole statement, I'll finish this incomplete fragment:

the fact that Giffords is a Democrat has no bearing on the matter

Ah another favorite:

The problem here is while you are all too aware about other people supposedly "restricting" your rights and freedoms, you're totally oblivious about how your sentiments would trample upon the rights of others.

Which is a misinterpretation of the original quote:

Originally Posted by bjd392
Feel FREE to "pursue happiness" through restriction.

It appears the knee-jerk to any significant event is scramble to create new laws.
Someone was shot?! Create more Gun Control!
Someone said something hurtful?! Limit free speech!
Disagree with media personalities?! Boot them off the air and fine them!

My opinions towards guns and protestors may appear to favor #2 while limiting #1, but I'm not going to go out and try to abolish the 1st amendment just because I don't agree with how broad it is. You can't accuse someone of "picking and choosing" if you're all about defending #1 and trying to limit #2. Just because the "1st Amendment" was the first one on the list doesn't make any of the others less significant. But in order to give some people rights and freedoms, you WILL take rights and freedoms away from someone else. There's no way around it. The difference is I accept the fact that every once in a while, my Rights will be trampled on by someone else who wants to exercise their rights; that does NOT mean you should take someone else's away. Hell, even funeral protests vs funeral gatherings is a 1st vs 1st conflict, and someone is going to lose.

If it makes you feel safer at night to place more laws upon yourself and limit what you want to do, you have that FREEDOM to RESTRICT YOURSELF if that's what makes you happy. If you want to give yourself a curfew, don't expect me to go to bed at 10pm. If you don't want to own a gun, don't tell me I can't own one. If you don't feel like ranting or listening to other people speak, then don't listen; but stop telling others to be quiet. This country craps out hundreds of laws every year, and all it does is to make each and every one of us, who are already law-abiding, a criminal in some way.

So if I'm still OBLIVIOUS to what's going on around me, I guess living on an island does that to people.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

My opinions towards guns and protestors may appear to favor #2 while limiting #1, but I'm not going to go out and try to abolish the 1st amendment just because I don't agree with how broad it is.

Who said anything about "abolishing" any amendment? Strawman.

You can't accuse someone of "picking and choosing" if you're all about defending #1 and trying to limit #2. Just because the "1st Amendment" was the first one on the list doesn't make any of the others less significant.

Once again, who said anything about the amendment #1 being more important than #2? This is all you beating up on your strawman.

But in order to give some people rights and freedoms, you WILL take rights and freedoms away from someone else. There's no way around it.

How does giving the right to "free speech" to one person means that the same right is taken away from another person? You're not making any sense here.

The difference is I accept the fact that every once in a while, my Rights will be trampled on by someone else who wants to exercise their rights; that does NOT mean you should take someone else's away. Hell, even funeral protests vs funeral gatherings is a 1st vs 1st conflict, and someone is going to lose.

Simply put, you're wrong. As long as protestors conduct conduct their demonstration in a peaceful and orderly manner and in the proper place, then that in itself creates no conflicts with people partaking in another event, whether it be a political/economic summit, court trial, or in this particular case, a mass memorial.

A conflict would occur IF the protestors went beyond exercising their free speech rights and conducted themselves in a disorderly fashion or they illegally trespass and disrupt the event. Conversely, a conflict would also arise if attendees at an event started to pick fights with protestors in an effort to disperse a legal demonstration.

Attendees and protestors may not agree with each other. But as long as they both follow the law and respect each other's rights, there is no conflict. An event takes place as planned, while protestors march around outside. That's America for you.

If you don't feel like ranting or listening to other people speak, then don't listen; but stop telling others to be quiet.

EXACTLY! So why did you earlier say that "funeral protests vs funeral gatherings is a 1st vs 1st conflict, and someone is going to lose?" Following your latest admonishment, funeral attendors shouldn't tell the protestors that they can't organize and demonstrate.

You've just contradicted yourself, bigtime.

[bjd392]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

^ Meh. Coaxing people to explain themselves any further will just be wasted once again.

[Kalalau]

Re: Arizona congresswoman shot

Balancing of rights takes place all the time, so often we don't even think about it. Yes you have the right to free speech but you do not have the right to parade porno in front of children. Nobody has a problem with that. You have free speech but you can't lie in a real estate sale. You have freedom of religion but killing someone and saying God told you to do it is no defense. No problem with that. You can't even marry more than one spouse at a time, you can't sacrifice kittens and puppies in church. The question in balancing rights is not if a line is drawn (it always is), but where, and thats where being reasonable comes into play.