Well, that's rather self-evident, isn't it? If he were pissed at a Republican congressperson, we would have had a different outcome. But the claim, as I understand it, was that the shooting "wasn't political", which I think is prima facie absurd.

 

You would.

 

Do you think the right would of been blamed for it?,,with no proof?

 

Must agree with Pheonix. Politically she's a cunt but cunts are there to be fucked. I'd knock her up any day even if it was just to get her out of politics.

 

Only based on the fact that the right-wing is obsessed with guns, which I imagine even you would have a hard time denying.

 

It appears that a good portion of the left is obsessed as well.

 

That is my assessment as well.

And I'd like to add this:

Jared Lee Loughner the Liberal Narrative Crumbles
posted 9th January 2011 in Irregular Ideas by F. G. Fitzer

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php...-lee-loughner-the-liberal-narrative-crumbles/

 

Facts, schmacts. That's their story and they're sticking to it.

 

​

Okay, so you he made a political statement on youtube, if you read the news he has many political ideas and such. And your article made a statement that you failed to show.

“It seems he is getting some of his key ideas from David Wynn Miller,” he said.

“It seems he is getting some of his key ideas from David Wynn Miller,” he said.

Again, this does not mean his actions were political, it just means that he read or heard this statement from David Wynn Miller. So the person might have personal beliefs about politics, hell almost everyone does. But his actions are not necessarily political.

I answered every question Kimiko asked of me, so I am not sure where you think I have not answered her or where I have dodged an answer to a question. So now I will answer you.

I never stated that tyranny is occurring, you find that, and I will be surprised. All I have done this whole time is answer Kimiko's question about the term "second amendment remedies". And I showed her historical text and quotes to show her that in historical context as it was used, there is nothing wrong with talking about it. That is allowed under the First Amendment right. Until something is done, this debate honestly is pointless.

 

I would not deny anyone their right to bear arms. ''OBSESSED'' is a strong term that probably does not apply. If your position is that only the political right has guns, and the political left does not, I think you are out of touch. You maybe able to claim that the political 'liberal' far left are totally against guns, I could almost buy that, but I'm sure there are some that endorse guns.

 

I am hard right now and I want so badly to please Sarah sexually!!!
Aaaahhhh,,,,oooohhhh shit forget it. It's over.

 

I rest my case on two. One, you can't even discuss this without using the world political. And two, if there is no tyranny occurring then there is no need for second amendment solutions are there? Or even discussion against tyranny when none is occurring..

 

What is tyranny?

Oppressive government with absolute power vested in one man. You thought that we were close to that with W, would you have taken up arms if that situation had occurred?

There are some who think that the power in the executive branch is more now, than it was three years ago, do you think the executive branch has too much power?

 

Hello every one

Hi, I am newbie.This is my frist post ...lol. say hello to all.

 

Hi, and welcome.

 

Welcome to the forum. Odd place to introduce yourself but.

 

sarah palin, the epitome of blind ambition..to win at any cost....proof that stupidity is no barrier if you have the right backers and money.

 

Half of your signature fits you well.

 

thank you

it does, doesn't it

 

To rest your case, you need to show proof, none of which you have provided. All you have provided are speculations, theories, hearsay, and conjectures. So actually your case is not rested, and if you do rest your case now, it has no foundation, so it will be thrown out.

I cannot discuss this without using the word political because you keep using the word political. And I cannot properly answer your question without using the word political. All you have proven is that Loughton has political beliefs, but that does not mean that the actions are political. You are failing to see that.

Again, no one knows as to why he has shot Giffords, when that is released and the statement is that he shot her because he had political motives, then your case can rest. But this debate honestly is pointless. There is not a shred of proof which points that Loughner's true reason behind the shooting was political.

Stumbler, First Amendment rights allow the people to say whatever they want to say, and do so while assembling peacefully. If they want to talk about using second amendment rights, let them. Until they act on their words, you honestly have no grounds for a debate on this matter. And if you had read all of the quotes in which I posted, both from the Declaration of Independence and from Thomas Jefferson, you would see as to why they are talking about the second amendment solutions.

I can see where they are coming from, what logic they used. But these are like the Muslim extremists, they take a document or a statement, twist the words around to their liking, and then act because the words state they can. But again, until these people act upon their words, this debate is pointless as well.