Yes, as I have said from day one, the shooting of Giffords and all the other people involved was tragic, but it was not political. There are way too many other reasons that point to a completely other picture than this being a political situation. Just because the person who was shot, does not make it political. As I have stated before, it could have been a personal vendetta that he has against her, but that does not make it political, it just makes it personal.

It is like a district attorney being in a night club and a bomb kills him and all the others in the club. Would that be political or law related? Not necessarily, it could be that it was just gang related, and the DA was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

I wanna see those titties up close

 

Really? Are you sure about that? Are you sure you don't just want to think that.

It seems that many of the words and phrases used by politicians over the years have been far more descriptive of the threat of violence than those used in the recent past by Palin and Angle.

 

If it wasn't a political event, then all of your rhetoric is meaningless Kimi.
It is almost like you are desperately wanting it to be political and can not fathom that it isn't.

Well put, Kimi can not handle something that goes against her personal beliefs. Which are that nothing is personal, it must be political.

 

But it is also thought to be intended as a means for the citizenry to defend themselves against the government.

 

Who is to say what the founding father's meant when they wrote way back then. I do know they were trying to gain thier independence, cause they didn't have many rights, and form their own nation. Was the right to bare arms really ment for individuals to carry a firearm, or was "people" ment to be this new nation(it's own army) and its right to defend itself against other nations if need be? As I have read before, I don't think it was meant for people (individuals) nowaday's to carry modern military style weapons just for the hell of it. Just watch your back, and your front.

 

Just read some history.


Since the times were violent, with armed insurrection and hostile forays against frontiersmen. It is most likely true that the framers meant that the citizens could keep their weapons to defend themselves. In Europe at the time, the citizens had been mainly disarmed.


A quote from Jefferson:

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764[/FONT]

 

The government in question did not have a standing army, navy or air force. Do you really think it's realistic to take on the biggest, baddest military force in the entire world with a bunch of handguns with high-capacity magazines? The entire idea is laughable.

 

Since she won't answer any questions about it, or even acknowledge she said it, we'll never know, will we? But I've heard enough rhetoric from the right about taking up arms against the government to have a pretty fair notion of where she was coming from. You even said it yourself...that it was the intent of the Second Amendment.

 

“the ballot box,” or “the bullet box"

This Republican nut case agrees with you.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001937/

 

When someone shoots a congresswoman at her well-publicized public event, it's political. It's clear that she was specifically targeted, unlike the DA in your bar. And if it was a personal vendetta, it was political. Personal vendettas arise for a reason -- the only contact he had had with Giffords was when she failed to give him a satisfactory answer to a political question.

 

I'm glad you found that clip, DL....I was looking for it earlier, and couldn't find it.

 

Because the Republican Party did well in the last election the right has become slightly less unhinged. Nevertheless, if President Obama is reelected by a comfortable majority, and if the Democrats win comfortable majorities in both houses of Congress in 2012 this kind of dangerous nonsense will come back in force.

 

Okay, let me debunk you right now on your theory. Three words: John Hinckley Jr.

It was a direct assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. But was his motivation political, no.

Just because a person shoots a political figure directly, does not mean that the whole plot behind the murder attempt or murder is political.

 

Well, how about you look up at my post number 360, and now read what she said. And I am going to highlight what she said after her infamous bullet box comment.

We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box, before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that is the beauty of our second amendment right. I am glad all of us enjoy our firearms for hunting, but make no mistake, that was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our second amendment right was to guard against tyranny.

Now, after reading all those historical words from not only the Declaration of Independence, but also from one of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson; do you understand now why she made the comment of bullet box? Because if tyranny occurs, we have the right to get rid of the government and get a new one.

 

Sarah Palin's poll ratings fall after 'blood libel' row

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/sarah-palin-facebook-fox-strategy

 

And let me guess...you consider the passage of a health care reform bill "tyranny". Right?

Or is it the size of the deficit that you consider evidence of "tyranny"? The GM bailout? What?

And if you have that right...the right to get rid of the government by force of arms, who decides what constitutes tyranny? Who decides when it's time to have a revolution? Who decides the difference between exercising your Second Amendment rights and treason?

 

Well, according to the Declaration of Independence, it is the following:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Interesting the way you said "the whole plot". I didn't say it was his ONLY motivation.

As for Hinkley, do you think he would have shot Reagan if Reagan has been a cab driver or the guy in charge of valet parking at the hotel?

 

So, aside from the obvious point that the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land, please answer my question. Who decides that the actions of government constitute "tyranny" or "despotism"? Is it you? And what is the difference between the action you're contemplating and treason?