T1B

this idea is dead on arrival, sort of like your life, papa willie

I wonder if rails, tar and feathers would be allowed ? That's how some were treated "back in the day" :D

Why would anyone need to have a gun within 1000 feet of a politician? I think you're looking at this backwards Papa Willie.

I have a miserable life and wish I were dead!

It's a shame more people within 20 feet of that nutjob didn't have guns. if they had, they might have taken him out before he could kill as many as he did.

Guns are here to stay. You can not keep them out of the hands of assholes, therefore it is important that the other 99.9% of the population have the ability to defend themselves.

This should be obvious to anyone with enough firing braincells to not be in a coma.

A reasoned response from this morning's NRO:

Where Are the Riots?
January 12, 2011 7:47 A.M.
By Kevin D. Williamson

I would like to draw your attention to the sound of a dog not barking: Following the slaughter in Tucson, consider what did not happen: no further violence, no retaliation against Loughner’s family or friends. Indeed, the only sentiments I have heard expressed about Loughner’s family have been those of concern and sympathy. The killer was not torn to pieces at the scene. He will receive a trial, with gold-plated legal representation, and, almost certainly, first-rate psychiatric care.

There were no riots. People were shocked and horrified, but they remained calm. They were generous with their time, their concern, and their prayers. Civilians — elderly ones — risked their lives to subdue the killer. Those who are professionally involved in responding to these sorts of situations performed their jobs with aplomb.

This in a nation suffering under a climate of simmering, barely controlled violence? Where are the riots?

It is a situation of a different magnitude, but I am reminded of what did not happen in the wake of 9/11. I am reminded of what did not happen in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting and what did not happen after Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad’s attack on the Army recruiting center in Little Rock.

May I point out: This is not normal, if by normal you mean consistent with the experiences of the greater part of mankind over history. When Indira Gandhi was assassinated — not eons ago, but in 1984, and not in some savage corner of the world, but in civilized, pacifistic India — thousands of Sikhs were lynched in retaliation, a pogrom of unbelievable horror. The French have seen more political violence this month while debating rent control than we will see after an assassination attempt. Consider Theodore Dalrymple’s take on Algeria and Tunisia, and their recent unrest, and what it bodes for the future of Europe.

There was a bit of progressive scoffing at Rich’s column affirming his belief that the United States really is the best and finest nation there has been, but anybody who has spent much time abroad (or immersed in a newspaper, for that matter) knows that the level of civility and decency exhibited by Americans during times of crisis is remarkable. Exceptional, you might say.

There have been some shameful performances during this episode, from those who have attempted to profit by it, either politically or financially (a subject I plan to revisit in a bit). What is most troubling about those distasteful performances is not the momentary and transient gains that these malefactors may enjoy in their electoral standing, television ratings, or website traffic, but that these cheap and dishonorable attempts to gain from this horror inevitably corrode the underlying bonds that make this country such a remarkable place. And that makes me more fearful for my country than do the bloody deeds of a lone lunatic.

Jsc810 wrote:

smackaholic wrote:It's a shame more people within 20 feet of that nutjob didn't have guns.

Arizona is one of only three states with unrestricted concealed carry and it didn’t help in this case. Further, at least one of the people at the scene had a gun, but didn't use it because of concern of hitting other people as well.

But this tragedy should not be used to restrict guns, that's certainly not what I'm saying.

Well, just what the fukk are you saying, chip? Sounds to me that you are saying unrestricted concealed carry is a failure.

This POS got off a lot of shots and would have kept going were he quicker at reloading and had there not been a couple of very brave and capable individuals in the right spot at the right time.

As for the other person with a gun who did nothing, it's hard to comment without knowing the circumstances or where he was. If he passed up a shot at this garbage for fear of hitting others and the result is the garbage killed more, then that person carrying a gun prolly ought to give it to someone with the nerve and ability to put it to use.

smackaholic wrote:It's a shame more people within 20 feet of that nutjob didn't have guns. if they had, they might have taken him out before he could kill as many as he did.

Guns are here to stay. You can not keep them out of the hands of assholes, therefore it is important that the other 99.9% of the population have the ability to defend themselves.

This should be obvious to anyone with enough firing braincells to not be in a coma.

Yeah, you're absofuckinlutely right. If 20 more people were packing and all got off 5 or 6 shots at Lautner he prolly would have been DOA from the three or so that hit him.

Oh yeah, and there would have been another half dozen or so dead and 30 more wounded. But at least they would have gotten the nutjob.

He almost blew that baby's head off. Rack him.

Frame of reference Screw and ... an untrained eye in my case.

The guy seemed cool, collect, and focused and appeared handle the weapon properly - to me - but I'm not trained.

The cameras angle vs. his angle does come into play here though. I think you're jumping to a conclusion.

Screw_Michigan wrote:He almost blew that baby's head off.

But he didnt, assbead. He shredded the bad guy in timely, precise fashion.

See, there's this thing called "practice" at this place called a "gun range" where you can hone your shooting skills and not worry about hitting such a close target because of said "practice" at the "range".



How's that "No firearms allowed in D.C." thing working out for you guys? Im sure the crime rate is very low, yes?

Jsc810 wrote:at least one of the people at the scene had a gun, but didn't use it because of concern of hitting other people as well..

He didn't use it because there were already 3 people restraining the already disarmed gunman.

88 wrote:Silly me, I thought we already had a law making it illegal to shoot high-level politicians and federal judges in the head. This new law will surely foil the next Loughner.

Out of all the reasons why this is a stupid idea you pick this one? The worst one of the bunch.

You really do have Appalachia DNA don't you?

Papa Willie wrote:Here's how I'm looking at it.

1. This is a politician's way of trying to make it "look like" they're doing the right thing.

Actually this is a poli-maggot with shit running down his leg now that one of the great unwashed masses had the temerity to take a couple shots at the Ruling Elite.

mvscal needs to change his name to Jagermeister.

So smooth.

Carson wrote:mvscal needs to change his name to Jagermeister.

He emerges from the shrubs, covered in mud and blood, exclaiming "I think I just ate a hooker"?