Comments

202
I have nothing to add, except to advise Venomlash that my nose is perfectly average in size.
203
@202: I was reading between Seattleblues's lines, not between my own.
204
Seattleblues even had trouble with my comments and all he had to do was google the facts. Papa Reagan closed our asylums in favor of tax cuts.......seems rather clear to me.
205
@175 Sweety i understand that it's very hard for you so i'll keep it simple. A branch of politics refers to our elected representatives you dumbshit. If i referenced a branch of goverment, then you would have had an argument. You homophobic asshat.
206
this is the most level-headed analysis of the whole Palin crosshairs/blood libel hulaballoo i have heard thus far:
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/20…

(9:00 into part 1)
207
@Seattleblues, sorry that I'm late to the disco, but you have repeatedly espoused homophobic and racist views. Many times here on Slog you have referred to or suggested that homosexuality is a "choice", "deviant", or inherently "destructive"- all of which is simply false. Over and over, you have posited that it is right to legislate against Marriage Equality (no doubt you will groan at that term), despite your arguments being deeply rooted in your religious beliefs alone, which have no place in law. Your racism manifests not simply in your positions on immigration, but also any time you open your mouth on the US's military role in the world. The history you present enormously distorts Western Expansion and our treatment of the Native American peoples, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the US's long history of colonialism. The American Exceptionalism you subscribe to denigrates not only the many peoples we have disenfranchised, but also our own culture, which is condemned to repeat the past should we refuse to recall and learn from the past. Perhaps your decades as a white, Christian, straight, cis-male, splitting his time between Seattle and his Italian home, have left you blind as to how enormously privileged you are, and made it near impossible for you to see how your comments are racist and homophobic, even though you don't feel particularly racist or homophobic in making them. I'm sorry if you see it differently, but a few of us on Slog have a bit of experience with marginalization and have heard your bullshit maybe once or twice before. I won't ask you to stop being an asshole (assholery is requisite to Slog), but maybe check your privilege and stop telling the Canadians here that they should butt out. Not infrequently do you condescend to call us and our beliefs immature, but to suggest that someone is disqualified from discussing US gun regulations because they are not American is incredibly juvenile, especially considering we clearly have something to learn from the rest of the industrialized world that does not have our insane gun violence issues.
209
samktg FTW.
Personally I'm waiting for Seattleblues to bring up that American women are all selfish, mean and materialistic, which is why he looked elsewhere for a spouse since foreign women are all loving, traditional and family oriented. Except Canadians. Then he'll be three for three and I'll win Wingnut Bingo.
210
Lissa

Well he must be peeved that you American women don't act like those submissive Asian ladies.
211
@210: And Canuck! She just boils his bacon somethin' fierce.
212
Don't take up baseball, Lissa, you can't seem to do anything but swing and miss.

I've got no problem with American ladies as friends or co-workers or fellow parishioners. But yes, I wanted a wife who shared my values, shocking as that might seem. As incomprehensible as it may seem to a liberal, when I promised 'til death do us part' I put my word and integrity into the 'I do.' I made my wife a promise I intend to keep, come hell or high water. For me marriage isn't a pleasant diversion, as with most lefties. For me it is the hub around which my life revolves. The income I make, I make for my wife and children. The way I treat people wherever I go, in business or at church or in a restaurant, reflects on them. Raising our children to become capable adults who realize their potential in life is the single most important task my wife and I will ever have. Finding an American woman who shares these values is possible, I suppose, but it would be like mining for gold. Lot's of dirt and digging, with little predictable result.

The left is about instant gratification and personal happiness. The cost to your families or your friends or your society aren't important so long as you have gratified the whim of the moment. Lliberals don't understand that happiness is a by-product. Do the right things, fulfill your obligations, find a job you enjoy and a spouse you love and put your whole heart into them, and happiness will come. Pursue happiness for it's own sake and you'll perpetually be trying to find the gold at rainbows end.
213
RE 204

Oh, see, I missed the link you brought up, Cupcake. You know, the one where Jared Loughner was comitted but we didn't have space in assylums? Or the one where he had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, but treatment was stopped because the Republicans cut funding? Wait, you didn't make that link? Interesting.

I also missed the point where you justify gun control without alteration of the 2nd Amendment, Dearie, and how it negatively impacts every other right to alter this one arbitrarily. You have the right to be a moron and express that fact clearly. I have the right, though I choose not to exercise it at present, to bear arms. If I suborn your right, I suborn mine right along with it, and vice versa.

Honey, I also missed the connection between all legislators from 1789 on and the epubllican party. Oddly, I recall a few occasions when Democrats controlled Congress. It wouldn't matter anymore anyway, as the Supreme Court just recently explicitly stated that the right to bear arms was an individual one which could not be abridged. Way back when you were stoned in civics class, you probably missed the bit about judicial review and checks and balances and all that. Oh well.

As you might have gathered, there are not many people in this world to whom I grant the familiar forms, like Sweety. You ain't one of them, lefty.
214
Homophobia- " irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Whew, I'm relieved. For a while I was beginning to worry that calling a spade a spade was homophobia. Representing a tiny minority of our population homosexuality is in fact deviant by definition. Representing a total disconnect with the biological point and purpose of human sexuality it is deviant by definition. Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive.

I repeatedly write that self destructive behavior is not ground for legislation against that behavior. I repeatedly write that what a deviant does in their own bedroom with consenting adults is their business. I repeatedly write that discrimination based on homosexuality isn't acceptable.

So, to sum up. I don't fear homosexuals, or indeed care what they do in private. I don't wish to discriminate against them. How exactly am I homophobic?

See how easy life is when you see reality as, well, reality.

Racism- "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race'

Geez, what a good day. Two slanders against my character cleared up in one fell swoop. I don't anywhere express derision for any ethnic or racial type. I think my country and culture pretty decent, a generally good influence on the world, and within historical context relatively well behaved historically. In your view, this makes me racist?

You dislike your country, what it stands for, and your revisionist view of history suggests appalling past behavior. From within this fairly depressing world view anyone with a slightly more healthy view of his own culture might seem racist, I guess. Kind of. Well, only if you don't understand the word 'racist.' Actually, you DO realize that 'American' is not a racial term, don't you?
215
Great Job Guys. Proud to be tangentially connected to The Stranger.
216
@209: "Personally I'm waiting for Seattleblues to bring up that American women are all selfish, mean and materialistic, which is why he looked elsewhere for a spouse."

@212: "Finding an American woman who shares these values is possible, I suppose, but it would be like mining for gold. Lot's of dirt and digging, with little predictable result."

I'd call that a hit.

@214: "I repeatedly write that what a deviant does in their own bedroom with consenting adults is their business... How exactly am I homophobic?"

One word: Deviant.

Two more words: Marriage Equality.

Dude. You're now reduced to lying about what you yourself are saying, even while you are saying it. What are you, a Palin speechwriter?
217
@BB

I'm sorry to say but my Sweetypie Seattleblues might be bonkers. His ramblings remind me of either a Bipolar sufferer or Schizophrenic. He reminds me of a few family members who suffer from those diseases.

Hopefully he finds a good doctor and a balanced dose of Lithium.
218
@214: "Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, [homosexuality] is self destructive."
One, the vast majority of the evidence so far indicates that sexual orientation is not chosen, but rather is almost entirely innate. Strangely enough, the second half of your sentence is even more ridiculous than the first half.
Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose a young Protestant Christian man in small-town America decides, after careful consideration, to convert to Wicca. Such a decision would certainly put himself at odds with family, friends, and society at large, as Wicca is a small, rather disliked minority in this country. But according to your logic, the young man in this story would be acting out in a self-destructive way.
Also according to your logic, it's the fault of homosexuals if they are rejected by their loved ones and persecuted by society at large. If I may get a little bit Godwin all up in this bitch, would the ~9 million who perished in the Holocaust also be at fault for being minorities? Are we blaming the victims here?
219
@212-214: Aaaaaaaaaand BINGO! Thanks SB, I knew I could count on you!
So to be clear, Liberals do not share your values regarding marriage, and you could not find an American woman (after what I am sure was an exhaustive search) who shared your values regarding marriage………so all American women are Liberals? No, that can't be it, considering how many women there are in the US…….. Hmm what could it be…. Hmm…Oh! Maybe it's just you.
Poor Seattleblues. Black people in the White House! Gays in the military and registering their china patterns! Women who laugh at his mansplaining and don't give his penis the respect that it's due! (It's in the bible, dagnabbit! Why won't bitchez read the bible?!) And these kids today, with their crazy music, who won't get off his lawn, and keep handing him his ass on the Internet! Even after he calls them "Junior"! And "Cupcake"! Gah! AUGH!!!!!

Yes it's hard out there for old Seattleblues. Gotta feel sorry for him. But I doubt any one could feel as sorry for him as he does for himself.
220
@217, Odd, Seattleblues' logic strikes me as incredibly similar to the logic of a close family member of mine suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Even the rhythm of SB's writing is very close to the cadence of this family member's speech and writing. In any case I don't think SB is a congenital narcissistic asshole, but rather just a narcissistic asshole who cannot see past his ENORMOUS privilege.
221
But 220, Can't you see the logic loops? All of the arguments that had nothing to do with what we said. He's a few braincells away from a breakdown that hopefully happens on Slog.

I feel rather bad for not wishing my Sweetypie Seattleblues a good day.
222
Whew, I'm relieved. For a while I was beginning to worry that calling a spade a spade was bigoted. Representing a tiny minority of our population monks [are] in fact deviant by definition. Representing a total disconnect with the biological point and purpose of human sexuality in marriage to God it is deviant by definition. Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive.

Oops, I'm sorry, that's a false equivalency, you don't choose to be gay, the way you might choose to become a monk. Also, you may not care what gays do in private, but you seem to have some very strong opinions on what they do in public, which really sets off the homophobe detector.

Oh, and regarding my revisionist history suggesting some appalling past behavior, you're wrong. It's not suggested, it's included, we have some pretty appalling past behavior. Regarding it being revisionist, of course it's revisionist, all history implicitly is- the problem with your revisionist history is the sheer quantity of denialism and lack of respect for other peoples it demonstrates. Refusing to acknowledge our country's failings further marginalizes the peoples we have already stomped on, that's the racist bit. If you don't want to call it racism, call it tribalism. It still demonstrates a belief that this exclusive group of caucasians who happen to be American are somehow superior to all of these other cultural and racial groups whose failings you have no problem pointing out.

And amazing, I didn't even think to call you misogynistic, but your outright dismissal of half of all Americans as potential romantic interests, simply because they are American and plumbed different from you, screams misogyny.
223
Poor Lissa,

Geez, you couldn't even hit one that was slow and up the middle, poor girl. I mean, you keep gamely swinging away, but you keep missing, even the easy ones. Kudos on the 'little engine that could' mindset though.

"...you could not find an American woman Hmm…Oh! Maybe it's just you."

Spending most of my adult dating years in various other countries had somthing to do with who I dated at the time. Not a lot of American women in Bolivia or Singapore, at least when I was there. Ditto the part of Africa I travelled in, though I couldn't speak for more than that area. For all I know Egypt at one end and South Africa at the other are just alive with American female expats, I couldn't say. Italian women didn't do much for me, but there still weren't many non-tourist Americans around. While I don't claim to be irresistible to women, I've never had any real trouble finding dates either. Not even in high school when they were all Americans. Sorry to burst your bubble.

My wife is Ethiopian by the way. Barak Obama offends me as president for a lot of reasons. His wife hates this country. He is unqualified. He is philosphically just right for the more liberal parts of Canada or Northern Europe, but not so much for center right America. But his ethnicity has nothing to do with any of the reasons he is a bad president. If it did, my homelife would kind of suck, really.

I could care less about DADT, in effect or repealed. If the generals who must implement policy say it's bad policy, that's good enough for me. I could care less if gays want to cohabitate, or get together in groups or register for China patterns. I could care less if a gay couple rents one of my houses. I don't have a lot of employees, and I couldn't say if any are gay. I don't ask. It simply isn't my business. They do an honest days work for their pay and that's all I really care about.

I don't feel a bit sorry for myself. I have a wonderful wife and kids, good relations with my extended family and hers, good friends. I make my living doing something I enjoy which manages to pay my bills and leave a little extra, all while working about half the year. I live in the best country in the world, in the most beautiful corner of that country. At the same time we get to enjoy the rich cultural diet of Southern Europe a few months a year. By and large, I've been blessed, and am aware of that. Self pity would be gross ingratitude, in my case.

As for bitches reading the bible, I love my 2 female dogs, but I'm not about to try to teach them to read, the Bible or anything else. Frankly, I'm not sure why you brought this up. It's kind of an odd notion, if you don't mind my saying so.

Speaking of the Bible, you keep bringing it up, and the other apologists for homosexuality as a basis for special rights do as well. I have not once mentioned my faith or any scriptural support for a single position. Not one solitary time. I have actually said that my faith is personal, and not a basis for public policy, several times.

BB,

Read the definition of homophobia. I don't fear homosexuals, rationally or irrationally. I don't advocate discrimination against them. Like marriage, words like homophobia have meaning. And just like marriage is the union of a man and a woman, homophobia implies fear or discrimination of homosexuals.

You have, as I'm tired of pointing out (or you would have if you were an American citizen) the same rights to marry as I do. I can marry any woman who will consent to do so, and so can you. Et voila, marriage equality.
224
@221, Maybe if we keep poking him he'll pop. It would be the flounce to end all flounces. Perhaps he would have to take some time to balance his humors at his Italian villa.
226
@223: I imagine some of your best friends are black as well.

It’s nice to see you admit to privilege. It sounds like your life is pretty much skittles and beer. Good for you, you International Stud!

So setting aside the EPIC example of mansplaining, coupled with a breathtaking lack of reading comprehension and pretended misapprehension of pop culture references (Bitchez, please),
Riddle me this:

If your life is so wonderful, and the shenanigans of the disenfranchised, (be they gay, poor, people of color, uppity womenz , what have you,) bother you not one wit,

Why do you keep coming back here?
227
@225

Who said I was? IRS rules could easily recognize civil unions as equivalent to marriage. I wouldn't care. It's calling it marriage that gives me trouble, not recognizing the civil rights of lifelong couples, gay or straight.

@222

So now I'm misogynist because I don't feel romanticaly attracted to American women in the main? All right, I give up. I'm a homophobic, racist, misogynistic-hell, let's throw in puppy kicking- asshole because I think that the sexual relations of a couple are private, don't like a president because of his politics who happens to be black, and don't feel attracted to American women. Oh, and I breed dogs just so that I can kick the puppies. (Though both my dogs are girls and both spayed, so I can't say I've had much success breeding them. I guess I'll have to get them registered as lesbian dogs so they can adopt.) You got me.
228
SB: Denial of marriage equality is discrimination. Your inability to see that - your absurd assertion that there is no discrimination because a gay man could still marry a woman, just like you can! - simply confirms your homophobia.

Thought experiment: If you were transported to opposite world, where gays were free to marry and heterosexuals were not, would you consider yourself to have full equality simply because you too could marry another man?

As to definitions and marriage, until the latter part of the twentieth century, marriage in the West meant the legal submission of the wife to her husband. She had no property rights - everything belonged to the husband. She did not even have the right to her own body; sexually, she was her husband's for the taking. This was legally defined; in the United States, the last spousal exemption from rape statutes was not removed until 1993.

So, clearly, marriage - what it means, legally and socially - is an institution that can evolve and which has evolved. Simply repeating over and over that marriage is "defined" a certain way - an unchanging way - is futile.
229
Lissa,

Honestly, some of you seem fairly intelligent. I've given up on it now, but I was hoping for some intelligent discussion of relative political positions.

Our priviledge is born of years of hard work and putting off buying what we wanted. It is born of discipline and skill and yes, luck. Neither of us were born wealthy. Neither have spectacular connections. We just put our heads down, worked very hard for a decade, and now can enjoy the results of it.

Anyone could do it, 'disenfranchised' or not.

International stud? My wife just looked over my shoulder and is now rolling on the floor in helpless laughter. She says to say thanks for the comic relief.

Well, have a pleasant evening.
230
Engaging Seattleblues in a discussion is hugging the tarbaby.
231
@229: My compliments to your lovely wife, she is most welcome.
232
@230: What happens if we try to hug you? ;) Not as sticky I would imagine.
233
@226: @223: I imagine some of your best friends are black as well.

Seattleblues pointed out in a previous thread that he met a Latina in the 1980s, an occassion which single-handedly absolved him of any racism in his anti-immigrant views.
235
@214:
Whew, I'm relieved. For a while I was beginning to worry that calling a spade a spade was homophobia. Representing a tiny minority of our population homosexuality is in fact deviant by definition. Representing a total disconnect with the biological point and purpose of human sexuality it is deviant by definition. Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive.


It most certainly is not.

Deviant is defined as follows:

Deviant
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n.

One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.


Deviant is inherently judgemental against a natural attribute that is fundamental to mammalian life, and certainly fundamental to human life. It accuses homosexuals of being ab-normal, or outside of the norm, which is patently ridiculous. And further, you accuse homosexuals of ACTING in a way that is itself deviant, wrong, and "at odds" with "society at large."

Your logic here is absolutely obscene, and grotesquely offensive, equating numbers of people who fit within some arbitrary category as thus leading to defining them as "deviant."

By the same token, black people in Canada (a small portion of the population) are also deviant. Let me cast this in a slightly more explicit equivalency:

Negroes in Canada are a small part of the population, "representing a total disconnect with the biological point" and the purpose of human evolution at different geographic latitudes. They exist entirely out of place, inherently. Negroes in Canada are "representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive." Clearly, black people choosing voluntarily to live in a place that is largely white, is at geographical odds with evolutionary principles. So, while I don't feel that we should pass laws against blacks living in Canada, it is not in any way racist for me to state that black people should not reside in Canada, and that it is DEVIANT for any black people to live in Canada or want to move into Canada. Such behavior is SELF DESTRUCTIVE, leads to them being a very small part of the larger population. I'm not actually afraid of black people, I just think that they should keep to themselves, and whites should keep to themselves, and no black people should move to Canada.

That is basically what you're saying:

"I don't like Ni**ers, their presence, their very EXISTENCE in this society is DEVIANT, but as long as I don't advocate passing legislation to discriminate against black people I'm not a racist."


Which is exactly the same as:
"I don't like F*gs, their presence, their very EXISTENCE in this society is DEVIANT, but as long as I don't advocate passing legislation to discriminate against gay people, I'm not a homophobe."


I will let everyone else tell you to fuck off.
236
@234: Swooon! God, I hope he clicks, I hope he CLICKS!
ps: marry me. In Canada, if need be.
237
What #235 said, more or less. You can say that homosexuality is atypical if you want, which is true; most people are not gay. Calling them deviant is pretty damn judgmental.

Lissa, I admire your sentiment, but please stop being a newfag.
238
@237: I don't think you can call it atypical at all. It's a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be "normal" or "typical."

If we follow the stupid logic that it's just based on whether most people are, or are not that thing, then it leads us to silly places.

It is TOTALLY normal for a portion of ANY human population to be gay/bi/etc. People who fall into that category ARE NORMAL. They are totally within the TYPICAL range of completely expected, universal, human beings with totally normal human attributes, and NORMAL human sexualities.

Just as it is TOTALLY normal for a portion of ANY human population to be 3 years old. The overwhelming majority of the human population is NOT 3 years old. Being 3 years old is, in fact, pretty rare. But if you go to ANY average community of any decent size, anywhere on earth, you will find 3-year-olds. Being three years old is NORMAL. SOME people are three years old. It is natural, unversal across all of history and all of geography, that a small portion of any population is three years old.

SOME people are perfectly normal homosexuals, just as SOME people are perfectly normal three-year-olds.

I don't think I made this argument as fully clear as I wanted to before, but I COMPLETELY reject the whole conception that there is some fuzzy zone where you can be totally okay with GLBTQI people but still think they're "abnormal." They're no more abnormal than an old person, an infant, a woman, a man, or any other completely normal and universal category of normal humans.
239
@Lissa, Is it legal for Eyepatch-Bowies and Demon-Kittens to marry in Canada? Or even on this plane of existence? I think that's one of the signs of the apocalypse.
240
@237: I'll have you know I *like* the ladies sir! Although admittedly to a lesser degree than I like the gentlemen, which makes me a "Bi to watch out for". And, as I understand it, opposite marriage is *just* as legal in Canada as gay marriage so either way my proposal is sound! If a little fan gurl. I will try to behave with more decorum in future, this being the Internet and all.
241
@239: Well I *have* been called The Sparkle Pony of the Apocalypse.......so I think you may have a point!
242
So, since Daniel Craig just phoned and canceled our date, and Mr. Canuck and I were forced to employ Plan B (watching 3 episodes of Big Bang Theory), and I am now back on Slog on a Friday night, I just wanted to say that Sam ktg has an awesome website, and not only that, he has a whatchamacalit of corgis running on a treadmill...squeee!! Lissa, you could certainly have a full-out church wedding here in Canada that would make the angels weep, but I fear if Baconcat ever sees that corgi video, you will have some competition for Sam's hand in holy matrimony.
243
@242: I was wondering where you had gotten to. Corgis you say?! I myself had a Corgi. The exes got her in the divorce, and for awhile they allowed me visitation, but alas no longer! I wish I knew how to do that taggy picture thing like Venomlash and samktg, then I could do what middle aged ladies do, where I show every one (interested or not) pictures of my pets. And thus this thread devolves.....
244
@Lissa, You may be interested in this.
245
I am so sorry that you lost your corgi, by the way. I know it doesn't make up for that loss by any stretch of the imagination, but have some adorable corgi .gifs. And by all means, give us pictures of your pets; no doubt one day I too will be doing the same.

@Canuck, I'm glad you like the website, way too much time goes into it.

I must admit I quite l quite like this cuddly turn of events on this thread- by no means is this a devolution.
246
@243: "And thus this thread devolves...."

Oh I think that happened looooong ago.
.
247
Oh, so sad, Lissa...about the exes and the lovely corgi! My dad did that to my mum, nice to lose a best friend and husband in one go, huh?

I couldn't talk to SB anymore, it was making my brain hurt. I can't stand reading the things he says, and I just don't understand why some people have such a strong need to limit the abilities and options of other people...what does he gain by it? What do any of them gain by it? Makes me sad.

The link thing! I'm feeling like a genius because I can now do a block quote, I think I'd have to have all that "a href" stuff taped to my computer at all times to be able to do it...

Why no Savage Love letter of the day?
248
Hey Sam, .gif, that's what I meant! That corgi scooting one made me laugh. And I agree, we have triumphed over hate with corgis...ah.

(Backyard B, snap out of it! You're supposed to be all mellow and Canadian! Corgis rule, SB drools, right?)

So, the art history website, love it. Time well wasted is how I describe all of my pointless ventures. I like to think it could be worse: I could spend my extra time getting gel nails or developing a dependency on pharmaceuticals....OMGOMGOMG! I did the link thingy!!!
249
Not sure what SB's motives are, Canuck, but I do recall that H.L. Mencken described Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

(As to the SLLOTD, perhaps the fleshpots of Miami were too enticing for Dan to tear himself away from.)
250
Ooo, fleshpots!! I think we should wed your quote about Puritanism with one of the last scenes in Good Morning Vietnam, where Robin Williams as Adrian Cronauer says to the cranky guy: "You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history," to describe what ails SB.

And don't you just want to force these guys to come up here and see the mass hysteria and bedlam that has resulted from same-sex marriage? Our boarded up cities? Our orphaned children milling through the streets like cast members from Les Miserables? Our skyrocketing unemployment rates?? Sheesh.
251
So... something about "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be getting a blowjob"?

Mass hysteria, bedlam... rising property values... strong banks... a 75% improvement in the taste and decorum displayed at the average wedding... It's madness, I tell you. Madness!
252
Exactly! Explains the pent up frustration, at least...

It's true, we are so messed up, I want to pay for my appendectomy, dammit! And the wedding party is *supposed* to wear turquoise and peach, not black...end times are upon us.
253
Only wimps pay someone to do their appendectomies. Be self-reliant! Do it yourself. That's why God created Bactine and Bowie knives.
254
Do you remember which side it's on? Do you think that will matter? (I only have tequila and a melon baller...I traded my Bowie knife for a pair of platform Fluevogs.)
255
Enough tequila and you won't care which side it's on.
256
I call bullshit on my Sweetypie Seattleblues. The Ethiopian women I know would kick his ass for everything he's been saying, including his pro-gun rambles. Unless he got a crazy like him, but I do recall him talking about how he couldn't find a lady before she magically appeared.

And I love Mexicans!! My housekeeper and Barista are Mexican.
257
@256: A man calls bullshit. A gentleman calls shenanigans.
258
HEY! What about Fred Hampton??? Malcolm X makes the cut but not Fred?
259
Poignant. Brilliant. Beyond Insightful.
260
Larry Flint needs to be surveyed
261
awesome works, guys. Now mail Wailin' Palin a copy.
262
Last word.
263
@262: I think you mean "second-to-last", my dear Jesuswolf aficionado. (Though it may well be third-to-last if you should decide to snark back at me in order to recapture the last word.)
Ta.
264
Venomlash, are you out there? I saw this button, and thought of you:

http://www.etsy.com/listing/62551892/cat…
265
I also found one for Seattleblues:

http://www.etsy.com/listing/62554181/int…
266
Credit where credit is due, the resident leftists did a good job on defense on this thread.

After making ridiculous claims that no sane person could support about the role of the 2nd Amendment and Sarah Palin (apparently equally important in the eyes of the left, oddly) they lost badly when sane people pointed out that Jared Loughner acted alone, and that the 2nd Amendment is open to change, if the political will is there.

Do you admit defeat? No. That would be too easy. 'Never say die' is your motto. But you couldn't win on any ground of logic or common sense, so what to do? I mean, Sarah Palin is no more responsible for the deaths in Arizon than I am, or you are, and you know it. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clearly written, and violating our rights there without regard to due process endangers every other Constitutionally mandated civil right, and you know this too. Well, clearly, confuse the issue with unrelated but very emotional topics, and then attack the opposition on ad hominem grounds, that's the strategy!

I fell for it. I admit it, to my shame. Kudos to the team of Lissa and Svensken for clouding the issue by bringing in homosexuality, and BB and Canuck for unrelated attacks on the folks with whom you disagree. Special mention should be made for the latter, after all they have no interest in our gun laws or our marriage laws, but presented their comments just as though they did. I learned long ago in high school and college debate lessons on this kind of obfustication, which I forgot long enough to be suckered. Again, congratulations lefties.

Hopefully the Seahawks will do better tomorrow than I did in this thread. Seeing Obamas home town boys defeated would be a close second for me to seeing my home town boys win. I like to think of the man watching this loss with some portion of the chagrin with which he watched America reject him in the last elections. Go Hawks!
267
Special mention should be made for the latter [BB and Canuck], after all they have no interest in our gun laws or our marriage laws, but presented their comments just as though they did.


Reading comprehension fail: Have stated many times I am a US citizen. (BB is a concerned Canadian.)

If we are not supposed to take an interest in the political affairs of other countries in order to ostensibly promote civil rights, one surely must wonder what, exactly, we are doing in Afghanistan.

Sarah Palin is no more responsible for the deaths in Arizona than I am, or you are, and you know it.


I don't "know it," and I never let bigots speak for me, in case you were confused. Sarah Palin is responsible, along with others, for ramping up the hate-filled rhetoric that has become all too common in the United States. If you think that has no effect on the general population, or does not influence those who are already unstable, then you underestimate the power of the spoken word. (Reload.)

Obviously, Seattleblues, I will never come around to your way of thinking no matter how many comments you make, nor will you come around to mine. I'd suggest we each keep doing what we feel will do the most to bring harmony and acceptance to this world:
You can continue to teach your children that gay people are sadly misguided "deviants," you can advocate for more guns and less personal responsibility, and you can take your (let's hope, for their sake) straight children over to Africa when it comes time to choose a spouse, as the gene pool on this side of the pond has been polluted with too many uppity women and godless men.

I, conversely, will continue to volunteer with an organization that teaches sex ed to kids, distributes free condoms, and runs workshops promoting LGBT sensitivity in the workplace. I will continue to write letters to the editor of our conservative local newspaper when they run editorials or letters that espouse views such as yours. I will continue to be thrilled that my children are growing up to be really cool people who have a wide, diverse group of friends. If one of them happens to be gay, that will be just great. The only thing that would really disappoint me would be if one of them became a conservative, but even then I would still love them no matter what.

268
@266: "I'm taking my ball and going home!"
269
'Agree to disagree?' Fine with me.

But speaking of reading comprehension-

"I don't "know it," and I never let bigots speak for me, in case you were confused." Fair enough, if I meet one I'll be certain to let them know. And I'm rarely confused, as I'm not a liberal. If you choose to believe that Jared Loughner has no responsibility for his actions it just makes the following sentence the more ironic though-

"... you can advocate for more guns and less personal responsibility,

Liberals are those who advocate for less personal responsibility, not conservatives. Conservatives routinely say that if one chooses not to obtain a trade or profession, they have that right, but they must accept the consequences of probable poverty. If one chooses to have a child, they have that right, but they must accept the financial burden of raising a child. If one chooses to buy a gun, they have that right, but they must accept responsibility for locking it up and using it in a law abiding manner, unlike that of say Jared Loughner.

And the only position I hold on guns is that they are a right that cannot be infringed upon, absent Constittutional amendment. I don't believe this because I own 43 guns myself. In fact I neither own nor wish to purchase a gun. I believe this for the reason I've repeated at least 4 times in this thread. All rights are protected by due process, or none of them are. The minute we set precedent for curtailing the 2nd Amendment on arbitrary ground without changing it, we put every other right we posess at jeopardy.

"You can continue to teach your children that gay people are sadly misguided "deviants,"

Gee. Thanks. Now that I have YOUR permission to raise my children as I see fit I feel ever so much better!

In the spirit of quid pro quo, you have the right to teach your kids that promiscuity is good, no form of sexuality has any consequences, and that chasitity and sexual intimacy as an expression of the deep love between a man and his wife are laughable puritan quirks.
270
Ah, Captain Wigged Out,

Sorry, buddy, don't have time to waste with you tonight. I promised my wife a babysitter and quiet drinks with no children.

Have a pleasant evening.
271
@269: "And I'm rarely confused, as I'm not a liberal."
http://i53.twitgoo.com/2jcc46c_th.png
Really? (Start at page 19, and remember that the viewers of FOX News are overwhelmingly conservative.)
"Liberals are those who advocate for less personal responsibility, not conservatives."
What, because we think that there should be a safety net in our society, allowing those struck by misfortune to get back on their feet and become productive citizens again? Remember, you guys are the ones pushing deregulation of almost every industry, mauling any proposal to enable the Federal and state governments to actually enforce their gun ownership laws, and blaming liberal boogeymen for the problems caused by your faction's greed and ineptitude.
"[guns] are a right that cannot be infringed upon, absent Constittutional[sic] amendment"
So apparently, prohibiting convicted felons from owning a firearm would be infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms? We don't let convicted felons vote, do we? Should we let them carry automatic rifles, weapons whose only purpose is to attack others?
"a man and his wife"
Maybe I'm reading into your wording too much, but that phrase seems indicative of a generally medieval attitude on your part, an implication which your commentary as a whole does nothing to contradict.
@270: "I'm taking my ball and hiring a babysitter so I can go home and spend some quality time with the missus!"
272
Oh Seattleblues, you really do try, but...

"If you choose to believe that Jared Loughner has no responsibility for his actions"...

I never said that. I said that the people ramping up the hate-filled rhetoric are resposible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Loughner flourished.

"you have the right to teach your kids that promiscuity is good, no form of sexuality has any consequences, and that chasitity and sexual intimacy as an expression of the deep love between a man and his wife are laughable puritan quirks."

Finally, we're getting somewhere. Everything you say there is true, except for the consequences part (I've definitely told them the consequences of unprotected sex...hence the condoms and nuvarings...) But you are "bang on," as Mr. Canuck likes to say, about the Puritans. My ancestors were banished from Massachusetts by the Purtitans as heretics, so I guess you could say all that social justice crap is in my blood.

273
Don't you know, Seattleblues? Liberals are DEMONS. Get out, stay out.
274
@270: I hope your kids catch The Gay.
275
@270: I'll bet your kids catch The Gay. I hear there's an agenda plague goin' round these parts.
276
I FAEL. :(
277
Doh! Commie pinko liberals always refresh their browsers, Captain Wiggette, didn't you get the memo from headquarters? No worry, though, anything said to Seattleblues bears repeating, as his reading comprehension is challenged at best.

And I have an Etsy button for you, too! :

http://www.etsy.com/listing/62726933/spe…
278
Re 271

Frankly I find your first paragraph a bit disjointed, which is odd considering that your style isn't usually in that pattern. So far as I can tell it is a hymn of praise to the social safety net, with a general condemnation not of what conservatives actually believe but of the straw men set up by left wing pundits. Nothing here to answer, really.

As for gun control, in 2008 the Supreme Court clarified the 2nd Amendment in the Heller case. We have an individual right to bear arms, which doesn't preclude regulation consistent with the militia clause. No conservative not deathly ill or otherwise incapacitated will resign while a far left nutjob like Obama sits in the White House, and none of the sitting conservative justices are unusually elderly or in ill health. Accordingly, the current make-up of the court is likely to be indicative of the next decade or 2 of case law.

Again, if you folks dislike the 2nd Amendment, there is a remedy. But wait, you know damn well that the public will for altering the 2nd Amendment is not there. So instead, you folks want to end run the process and pretend that the militia phrase is functionally limitless regarding legislation. Well, Heller says that it isn't.

I think you mean by medieval the following- Chastity prior to being involved in a loving relationhip with someone with whom you have emotional intimacy is neither a smirking joke nor an outdated concept. And sex within marriage between an emotionally intimate couple as the physical expression of that intimacy leaves sex without it standing. If that's medieval, so be it. So was Dante. So was Beothius. I'm happier with that company than with that of Andy Warhol or the smirkings of Jon Stewart, if it comes to that.

Sven Birkerts wrote a very interesting series of essays called the Gutenberg Elegy about contemporary thought. He wasn't condemning the fast pace of change, nor lauding it. He was merely taking some time to consider the consequences and directions of that change. It's worth a read, if only because he is a rare skillful writer and a real pleasure to read.
279
SB - you keep talking about the clarity of the second amendment but you never mention the first part. What do you suppose a well-regulated militia means in this context? And how might the concerns of that day (also illustrated in the third amendment) be very different in today's America?
280
@MyEverSweetCupcake Seattleblues

http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/C­anadian_Fi­rearms_Reg­istry

http://www­.nationmas­ter.com/gr­aph/cri_as­s-crime-as­saults

Check these stats on Canada and read-up on the firearm registry. They have fierce enemies in the Canadian Conservative party and almost got voted out of the government by nut jobs like you.

But every canadian I know loves the registry and feels safe with them watching the guns.
281
I'm late to this party...

I love the map.

*

Canuck: "I said that the people ramping up the hate-filled rhetoric are resposible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Loughner flourished."

I agree, but then using that same reasoning, we can say that Muslims around the world who espouse hatred of America are responsible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Major Nidal Hasan (who murdered 13 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood) flourished. But I don't recall my fellow libs condemning all those Muslims for their hate speech.

*

Seattleblues: "So instead, you folks want to end run the process and pretend that the militia phrase is functionally limitless regarding legislation. Well, Heller says that it isn't."

You're right, but the militia phrase is, of course, open to interpretation. Was the intent of that phrase to allow people the right to bear arms only in the context of a militia, or not? No one can agree. If the amendments were clear-cut we wouldn't have Supreme Court justices frequently disagreeing. Heller, I believe, was the typical conservative/liberal split with Kennedy siding with the conservatives. But, as you alluded to, it will probably be quite some time before there is a Supreme Court that would see things differently.

I've also read that polls show decreasing support among Americans for gun control. What I've read is that liberals have remained fairly constant in favor of it and conservatives fairly constant in opposition, with the support decreasing among independents. After every incident like this, there is always a clamor for something to be done but nothing significant will happen.

"a far left nutjob like Obama" What makes him "far" left to you?

"Representing a conscious choice to put oneself at odds with family, friends and society at large, it is self destructive."

What makes you absolutely convinced that homosexuality is a choice? You and I are both heterosexual...did you choose to be attracted to women? I didn't. I didn't sit down one day in 5th grade and say to myself ("Y'know, girls and boys look equally cute to me but I'm gonna pick girls because that won't piss my parents off.") I've just always been attracted to them (and, likewise, the same for you.) Why is it so difficult to accept the fact it very well be the same thing for gays & lesbians?

*

Captain Wiggette: "Seattleblues pointed out in a previous thread that he met a Latina in the 1980s, an occassion which single-handedly absolved him of any racism in his anti-immigrant views."

Talk about reading comprehension fail. I was the one in that thread who mentioned I had a Latina girlfriend in the '80s and the reason I did it was because of her parents. As I mentioned, her parents were from New Mexico and both of them were descended from legal immigrants from Mexico. They were in favor of legal immigrants from Mexico but not in favor of illegal immigrants. However, using your peculiar kind of "logic", they are "racist" against their fellow Latinos since they are opposed to illegal immigrants from Mexico.

282
Halfwit at 280,

I don't own a gun, nor do I want one. So you can keep calling me a gun nut til the cows come home, it don't make it true, you product of the unholy union of siblings..

I do want due process to prevail in how we maintain our rights. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, change it. Otherwise, the way in which law and the Supreme Court have interpreted these gun laws are the law of the land. Read Heller for further information, not Canadian laws which have no bearing on the issue whatever. At all. In any way. Canadian law or opinions on this are utterly irrelevant.

I could give a damn less what Canadians like. They seem nice enough on the occasional trips to Victoria or Vancouver, but I don't meddle in their politics and would appreciate their not meddling in ours. It may have escaped your notice, but we don't live in Canada. If you want to emigrate, please do. Please. Any time. The sooner the better. It would raise the average intelligence in whatever community you currently inhabit if you did. Otherwise, accept the law of THIS land, change it legally, or shut the hell up.

283
@266: Aaand DA BEARS handily defeat the Seahawks, although they did loaf a bit in the last 5:00.

@278: So you're saying that conservatives are NOT actually pushing for deregulation of industry? And that conservatives are NOT actually against waiting periods for purchasing firearms (without which background checks are rather ineffectual)? And that conservatives have NOT consistently tried to paint our current economic woes as the "Obama Recession" from Day One?
And no, by "medieval" I mean your use of "man and his wife" rather than "husband and wife", as the first implies ownership while the second implies partnership. Again, I may have been reading perhaps a little too much into your wording.
Finally, citing two philosophers as examples of the Middle Ages suggests a great deal either of ignorance or of dishonesty on your part. European society, during those days, was barbaric, regressive, widely uneducated, and tyrannical. Claiming that the medieval period was somehow civilized, based solely on a smattering of examples, is like claiming that the Nazis were tolerant of minorities, based solely upon the example of Erwin Rommel.
284
@Sweetypie

Your an idiot if you think that non of our laws are based on another countries. The basis of our Democracy is the Roman Republic. Have you never notice the architecture of our capitals?

You obviously didn't read my links,. If you did you would have seen how our Canadian friends, who you hate :(, have setup a system where gun owners have rights but the crazies can't own a gun.

And you should read a little on Constitutional law. The Constitution is a living/breathing document that's meant to change with the people.
285
@284, He's an idiot.
286
Svensken, Seattleblues ignores the questions he can't answer (like why it's bad for Canadians to care about US politics, but it's good for Americans to care about politics in Afghanistan), or he twists what you said in the first place. Our gun laws, while allowing people to have rifles for hunting is they so wish, are great in the "hard to acquire a handgun" department, and let's face it, handguns are for killing people, full stop.

Roma, if I recall, there was a big hue and outcry when the cartoonist was targeted by extremists for her drawings of Mohammed, or when Theo Van Gogh was murdered. The liberal media *does* talk about it when any kind of extremism results in the death of moderates, but I don't have sources, that's just what I remember.
287
Canuck, yes there was a fair amount of condemnation of Islamic-extremist hate speech in the two situations you mentioned. But I was referring to Major Hasan and his murder of 13 people at Fort Hood which, I would argue, is much more comparable to Loughner. In that situation, I don't recall my/our fellow libs saying that Muslims around the world who espouse hatred of America are responsible for the climate in which a disturbed person like Hasan flourished. What I recall was an insistence that he was a "lone nut."

For example, compare these post-rampage editorials in the NY Times:

Hasan
In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, "we don't know all the answers yet" and cautioned everyone against "jumping to conclusions." …until investigations are complete, no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling rampage.

Loughner
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.

288
280/svensken, thanks for the links. It was interesting to read about the Canadian registry.

"But every canadian I know loves the registry and feels safe with them watching the guns."

Every Canadian you know is, of course, anecdotal. Did you see this part of the Wikipedia piece...

A survey in August 2010 revealed that 72 percent of Canadians believe the long-gun registry has done nothing to prevent crime.

And I found this interesting...

The Violence Policy Center has argued against such a system being implemented in the United States on the grounds that it would not reduce gun violence in America. (The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national 501(c)(3) educational organization working to prohibit gun ownership in America, especially in relation to gun politics. Founded in 1988 and based in Washington, DC, the VPC approaches violence, and firearms violence in particular, as a broad based public health, as opposed to solely a crime, issue.)
289
Fair points, Roma. Perhaps we're overly conscious about drawing comparisons with Muslim rhetoric for fear of being labeled insensitive, while we don't pull our punches with our own...I don't know. But, fair points. I really do think that any group, be it extremists in the Middle East or Teaparty members, should be aware that their hate speech does much to increase tensions and bad feelings all around. I don't think there's a big difference between what people like Beck, Palin, and all of the hate-group Christians say in terms of their "apocalyptic" speech, and the kind of stuff that ends up on Middle Eastern TV stations, promoting suicide bombers. We *all* need to take it down a notch, or ten.

Re: SB's position on same sex attraction: You can't ask him when he chose to be straight, in the hopes that he will see the fallacy of his argument. He believes "straightness" is our default setting, that because we are "designed" to procreate, then there is no "reason" for people to be anything other than straight. (Don't bother telling him about the thousands of examples in the animal kingdom about homosexuality in animals, or the benefit of gay people to the whole tribe from thousands of years back) He believes that even if people feel same-sex attraction, that they can "choose" not to act on it. Good thing SB is straight, and he can act on his opposite sex attraction without fear of condemnation, whew!

He is a bigot who cloaks his bigotry in good grammar and excuses it with his religion.
290
Roma @288

You might be interested to read this recent editorial in the Calgary Herald (our notoriously conservative paper) on gun laws in Arizona vs. the States:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/Wil…

Re: your points about the 72% who believe the long gun registry hasn't affected crime rates: Long guns generally aren't used to commit crimes, so it isn't surprising that registering long guns hasn't affected the crime rate (that is primarily committed with hand guns). However, it is exceedingly difficult to purchase a hand gun in Canada, and that does make a big difference in crime rates. We do, by any measure, have lower rates of gun crimes in Canada than you do in the States.
291
Thanks, Canuck.

"We *all* need to take it down a notch, or ten." It will be interesting to see if that happens. If it does then, as terrible of a tragedy as Tucson was, perhaps that will be a "silver lining" to it. But I'm pretty skeptical.

He believes that even if people feel same-sex attraction, that they can "choose" not to act on it.

Well that part is true, just as I could choose to not act on my attraction to women. But, as you and I both know, it's also ludicrous to expect someone to choose to avoid physical intimacy simply because it's in their nature to be attracted to someone of the same sex.

He believes . . . that because we are "designed" to procreate, then there is no "reason" for people to be anything other than straight.

Well part of that is also true. We are designed to procreate. Reproduction is one of the most fundamental drives -- if not the most fundamental drive -- of any creature. But what that line of thinking fails to take into account is that creatures who are very successful at breeding -- which human beings certainly are -- don't need to have every being reproduce. Having people who aren't geared towards breeding isn't a negative on our overpopulated planet; it's a positive.
292
Your welcome Roma.

Me saying that is anecdotal however it is my reality that I've come into contact with.

There is criticism of creating a registry in the United States. But I can't help but agree with the idea that potential gun owners should provide letters of reference, family contact information and a home inspection/interview before purchasing a gun.
You can own a gun, but you need to provide proof that you are a responsible individual.
293
@Canuck

Interesting article
294
Canuck, thanks for the link to the Calgary Herald article.

"Re: your points about the 72% who believe the long gun registry hasn't affected crime rates: Long guns generally aren't used to commit crimes, so it isn't surprising that registering long guns hasn't affected the crime rate (that is primarily committed with hand guns)."

I just saw that 72% figure in the Wikipedia piece and I thought it was an interesting contrast to what svensken said about Canadians he knows. But I guess I need something clarified by you or svensken. The Wikipedia piece says "Since its introduction in 2001 and continuing on to the present, the long-gun registry remains a contentious issue in Canadian politics." So is this registry only for long-guns or for all guns, including handguns?

Me saying that is anecdotal however it is my reality that I've come into contact with.

I understand that svensken, but our personal reality is not necessarily representative of the population at large, frequently because that reality mainly encompasses people who think like us. For example, if I extrapolated from my personal reality -- that I and everyone I know voted for Obama in 2008 -- to the U.S. population at large, I'd conclude that Obama won in a huge landslide. But, of course, he didn't.

295
Roma, ALL guns in Canada have to be registered, long and "short". The reason it's a contentious issue is that, from what I've heard over the years, most of the people who own long guns are rural, and tend to have that mindset that they are hunters who use their guns responsibly, that their rifles or shotguns are not the cause of gun crimes, and so it's an invasion of their privacy to have to register them. While there's truth to that, no doubt, the gun registry went ahead, and Canadians still registered their long guns, amidst grumbling.

It is exceptionally difficult to acquire a handgun in Canada. Canada does not recognize general self defense as an adequate reason for having one, I think you must prove that your life is actually in danger. The people who do have them (legally) must show that they need them for their job, and are required to inform the RCMP when they transport them. For the few people who do get handguns, they are required to prove mental stability via exams, need letters of reference, and their spouse (if they are married) is notified. We only know of two people who have handguns, both for use in the backcountry.
296
Thanks for the info, Canuck.

So this statement -- "A survey in August 2010 revealed that 72 percent of Canadians believe the long-gun registry has done nothing to prevent crime." -- must be as it appears, to apply to the feeling of Canadians only about the registration of long-guns. I wonder what percent of Canadians feel that the registration of handguns and/or the difficulty of acquiring them has done a lot to prevent crime.

Am I correct in presuming that Canada has nothing like the 2nd Amendment in the U.S.?
297
Interesting segment on 60 Minutes tonight about Loughner...

Robert Fein and Bryan Vossekuil wrote a comprehensive study of assassins for the Secret Service in 1999. In prisons and hospitals they talked to 20 subjects, including Arthur Bremer, who shot presidential candidate George Wallace, Mark Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, and Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Robert Kennedy.

They found that assassins come from all walks of life but travel a common path leaving distinctive clues. "One of the things that we also saw were that there were common motives among a number of these to include drawing attention to a grievance. Possibly looking for notoriety. Potentially actually being suicidal and being willing to die or expecting to die in an attack and perhaps wanting to die," Vossekuil added.

"In the more than 80 cases that you studied, was politics, pure and simple, ever the motivation?" Pelley asked.

"I cannot think of a case where politics, pure and simple, was the motivation. Sometimes people used a political language but people are more complicated than attacking somebody over quote a political motive," Fein said.


I found this part below particularly interesting. It seems like he may have held a grudge against Giffords ever since 2007 -- long before the existence of the Tea Party and Palin's infamous crosshairs map -- but didn't lash out at her until he had the "life-changing" event that probably really pissed him off and pushed him over the edge. It other words, it seems very plausible that his targeting of Giffords was due to his warped personal animosity towards her and it was simply a coincidence that her district was in one of Palin's crosshairs.

In 2007, Loughner brought one of his nonsensical questions to one of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' community meetings.

"The question he asked her was: 'What is government if words have no meaning?' And she read it and obviously, you know, that's kind of a convoluted question," Conway told Pelley.

Loughner told them what he thought of her reaction.

"He thought it was a joke," Conway remembered.

"Yeah, a joke that someone who works in government can't answer that," Tierney added.

"What was her answer to that question as he put it to you?" Pelley asked.

"Nothing. She didn't answer it," Tierney said.

"She didn't. She didn't answer it," Conway said.

"She couldn't answer it. I mean how would you how can you?" Tierney added.

"But because she didn't answer the question he had disdain for her?" Pelley asked.

"Oh, yeah," Conway replied.

"That's what he told you?" Pelley asked.

"I think that anyone who didn't connect to his lines of thinking he had disdain for," Conway said.

His friends say Loughner's "lines of thinking" intersected with conspiracy theories that government controls people's minds and that U.S. currency is worthless.

His only known meeting with Giffords was three years and four months before the assassination attempt.

When police searched Loughner's home they found a form letter from Giffords thanking him for attending. On the envelope, he wrote "Die bitch." He held on to the letter all those years.

. . .

The research on assassins shows that many killers started their final preparations after a life changing event.

And two months after his suspension from school, Loughner bought that Glock he admired.

298
Roma, it's hard to explain, but there is just a different mindset here. I don't think the response of the average Canadian to gun violence in their city would be, "I need to own a gun, myself," it would be more along the lines of, "What is the RCMP doing to control the gang violence that is cropping up?" That's the sense I have, anyway. We never lock our doors here, during the day, at least. I always leave the front door unlocked, because I hate thinking my son might get locked out when it's -25! Seriously, it is just so different. I'm probably generalizing, but it seems to me that the majority of gun related crimes here are committed by gangs that have moved into Canada fairly recently. I'm absolutely not being xenophobic, just stating what I remember from reading the paper, when I read about someone being shot downtown. Canada certainly isn't perfect, but Canadians are, in my experience, less aggressive than Americans.
299
@Roma

I question that survey, perhaps I'm wrong and I'll look into it when I'm sober. I do know many Canadians from various sections of that country and they like the gun laws. Keep in mind they are non-gun owners. But you can't help but think that a personal interview with Loughner would have seen him unfit for ownership of a weapon.

@Canuck has an excellent point. A majority of crimes are committed with 'Hot' Guns, like Mexico, that come from the US. All of the studies I've read have come from at least 2001, I'm presuming that our current state hasn't been properly analyzed for a sterile statement.

But this brings me back to my current idea. If we control gun ownership in America then maybe we can control Gun ownership on this continent. Perhaps we should start a government program to increase gun safes in america so theft isn't such an option? I know a few former criminals and they said that they would always invade homes when no one was home, so maybe an impenetrable safe is a good option?
300
@Roma&Cunuck

Dear god can we say conflicting!!!!!

I followed the link to the studies findings (While drunk) and OMG!! It's an undergrads nightmare!!! So many numbers that it's hard to conceive of a coherent message (while drunk).
301
svensken, I don't think I could even spell "coherent" if I were drunk, so you must still be slightly sober...although personally, I think drunk slogging gives us that nice little surprise, when you get up in the morning and think, "Oh god, what did I write, again?"

I think a lot of this has to do with attitudes as much as with laws (I'm overstating that, probably, the law obviously makes a big difference, too). I get the impression from these boards that the people who use guns genuinely feel like they need them for protection, that they are unacceptably vulnerable without them. I grew up in hippie Cambridge, Mass, and guns were just seen as an example of everything that was wrong with our aggressive society, so my experience doesn't help me to understand the mindset of people who feel that they need them on a daily basis.

I do know that I've never, and I'm not exaggerating, heard a Canadian say that he or she wished they could buy a handgun for personal safety from other people. Even the rural people we know who have hunting rifles never talk about using those rifles for self defense.

And yes, gun safes are essential, I think. I doubt there are too many thieves out there who would take the time to break into a gun safe. Not only do we have to register guns here, but they are required to be stored in a gun safe, or at the very least have trigger locks on them. This goes to show that people here have them primarily for hunting, and not self defense, because obviously, a gun that is locked in a safe isn't something you could access quickly. For that very reason I doubt gun safes will become a requirement in the States (going back to that "vulnerable without them" mindset), although if they were, I bet we'd read a lot fewer headlines about children shooting each other with a parent's gun.
303
@302 Maybe not, but still:
Only one third of Canadian murders involve firearms. Most Canadian weapons are rifles or shotguns owned by rural property owners, hunters and target shooters, and are less likely to be used in crimes. Many types of weapons are banned or restricted in Canada. The two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec have had a long history of strict gun controls. Most of the users of these illegal firearms are youth in their teens and early 20s.

It is effectively illegal to carry concealed handguns in Canada. There is a permit that allows people to carry if they can prove they need to protect their lives but the permit is very rarely issued. Only about 50 permits had been issued in all of Canada as of 2000. In the same year there were approximately 1 million hand guns in Canada, compared to 77 million in the United States.[12] Defensive use of firearms is uncommon in Canada.[13]
304
Roma, it's hard to explain, but there is just a different mindset here. I don't think the response of the average Canadian to gun violence in their city would be, "I need to own a gun, myself," it would be more along the lines of, "What is the RCMP doing to control the gang violence that is cropping up?" That's the sense I have, anyway. We never lock our doors here, during the day, at least.

My younger sister doesn't lock the doors at her family's home either...but then she lives in small town with very little crime. Where do you live? I think if you live in a U.S. city and don't look your doors, you're foolish and I'd bet any police department in the U.S. would say that's the first step, and the easiest, that someone can take to prevent a home break-in.

If the police were able to protect people in the U.S. from assholes breaking into their home, then people wouldn't feel as much of a need to have a gun at home. But cops can't do that. Cops weren't protecting my elderly neighbor's house when some asshole broke in, raped her and bludgeoned her to death with a hammer. Cops weren't protecting my house when someone tried to break in during the early am hours years ago. I don't have a gun at home and probably never will (although I've certainly considered it) but I don't blame people who choose to have one and, furthermore, I applaud any homeowner who shoots and kills an asshole who has broken into their house.

Canada certainly isn't perfect, but Canadians are, in my experience, less aggressive than Americans.

It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.