Get rid of one by shooting or voting? Ok, that was bad, sorry........

 

Do you have any idea about the motivation behind John Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on Reagan?

It was a simple obsession with Jodie Foster. The idea came from the movie Taxi Driver. He thought that by doing so, he would be able to attain the same status as Jodie Foster. He had many ideas of how to get Foster's attention, but assassination attempt was the one he decided upon.

It was not political, it was just a man who was psychological ill, making a wrong decision. Sort of what happened here.

And until the final decision comes out on why he shot at Giffords, lets stop this political angle. It is both speculation and hearsay.

 

You didn't answer my question. Would he have shot Reagan if he wasn't president of the United States?

 

Well, the idea stems from the Declaration of the Independence and from Thomas Jefferson as I originally have shown to you. So to not use the Declaration of Independence as a source of reference, would be useless. Considering that is where it mentions about getting rid of an old government and making a new one.

And according to it, the people would decide what tyranny was. And today, yes it would be treason. Back then, it would not be.

But all the examples shown are the same phrases used by our founding fathers in both historical documents and historical phrases. I am just showing that what has been said is in historical context of the US. So I do not see as to what they said is incorrect. Now if they were to actually act upon it, that would be different. But no one has acted upon it.

 

The answer is no, he would have shot whoever the President was at the time of his assassination attempt. Because the only man he thought he could assassinate to be of equal status with Jodie Foster, was the President.

So that is not a political based attack, that is just an attack on a political figure based on an obsession with Jodie Foster.

Now do you understand the difference?

There can be a correlation but that does not mean there is causation.

Just because it is a political figure that was attempted to be killed, that does not make it a politically based crime.

 

That's a nice exercise in hair-splitting.

 

But they're proposing to act on it. Who will then decide whether or not such action constitutes treason? Who will decide that shooting the President of the U.S. is a legitimate exercise of Second Amendment rights?

Face it, El Casanova, this whole thing is a right-wing fantasy. It is a practical and legal impossibility to take up arms against the government, and to claim that you're doing it pursuant to the Constitution and that it's perfectly legal.

 

Can we just say that the shooter was not discourage to do what he did by listening to any politician. He was a nut. And there are plenty of them out there. The politicians need to realize that what they say can encourage one of them to act, maybe more sooner than planned. But it is politics, in a few weeks, it will all die down, and business as usual............................

 

It is a not a nice exercise of hair splitting. It is a simple reasoning when doing any type of research. Its what everyone learns when taking Research Methods, or any science. Correlation does not equal causation.

Its like murders go up when ice cream sales go up. Does that mean that more ice cream causes more people to kill?

No, more ice creams are sold because the temperature goes up, and that is the reason why more murders are done.

Even though there is a correlation between the increase of ice cream sales and the increase of murder rates, one does not cause the other. There is another aspect that causes the murder to increase.

 

It is not just killing the President. its killing everyone in the government. It is talking about killing the whole executive and legislative body.

I never said it was legal. I just showed that the comments that were made, are all in context to the historical documents and historical saying given to us from our founding fathers.

Have I once said that it was okay to take up arms against the US government? If you find it, let me know.

 

Sweetie, I was doing research when you were still in grade school, so please don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. Correlation does not equal causation, but causation MAY, in fact, exist where correlation exists. You are asserting, in the absence of evidence, that there IS no causation, and I'm asserting that there may be.

 

But that is EXACTLY the implication of their words, and your defense of them.

 

I am defending the right of the people to use their first amendment right to say what they want. If they wish to paraphrase words from history, so let them. The moment, the words turn into actions, then we can debate about this and how wrong that is. Until that happens, I do not see a point to debate this matter any longer.

 

How about we just agree to disagree and stop this debate. Due to the simple fact, that I feel like I am on a seesaw and it will not stop until one of us stops.

 

What does that have to do with the intent of the framers? They did have designs to establish the standing military and did so soon after the documents were written.

You try to discredit their intentions with the absurd. The world we live in today is so different, yet it so much the same.

 

There is a huge difference between "taking up arms against" and "defending ones self against".

 

How can that be?? Since I do not agree with her.

 

Paranoid much?

All the rhetoric on either side of this ridiculous argument does not equal violence. Your comments do nothing to defuse or otherwise tone down the endless bullshit.

Any revolution that may be coming, is not one of arms but one of votes. Those who fear the vote, accuse their opponents of intending to resort to violence. It's all you have.

 

Sometimes it is all that you allow. Whenever we have an argument that is on one side solely based on rhetoric, the other side must glean whatever is contradicting within that rhetoric.

 

I think Stephen Colbert should have the last word about Palin for now....from his show last night.

https://www.myvidster.com/video/930...rt_Report_-_11811_-_Video_Clip_Comedy_Central