Correct. The solution is the "in between."

 

And that "in between" is the subject, and has long been the subject, of the political dialogue, debate and discussion in this country.

 

For me, enacting a law that limits one's individual liberties only is justified when there is a very compelling need to do so. Saving one life, a hundred lives or a thousand lives may not be compelling enough to take away some liberties. No surprise here, but the right to own a gun and 30 round clips is a much more important right than being able to go onto a plane without being scanned. Others will surely disagree and that's fine.

 

Nothing pops my cork faster than when some one in support of some law that will impact my liberties says "it if only saves one life, it will be worth it". Perhaps it will to that person, but not to me. If we enact laws to save every life from everything other than dieing from natural causes at the ripe old age of 90, we will not be free people. I'm sorry the Congresswoman died; very sorry. But I wouldn't have supported banning 30 round clips even if I knew in advance it would have saved her life (or mine for that matter).

 

Personally I think the whole cross hairs symbol demagogery on here and in the media is way over the top. The word target has long been used and accepted when referring to a political opponent. I see nothing wrong with that. Certain politicians are being targeted to be beat. Using the cross hairs, which is nothing other than a symbol of targeting, doesn't bother me either.

 

What is bothersome is that some of the same people attacking Palin for her use of the cross hairs symbol and for ratching up the political extremist dialogue are engaging in the exact same stuff on here.

 

The guy who pulled the trigger is a wacko. If we have to avoid every word, avoid every expression, and not use any symbol that may spur some wacko from doing something dangerous, we will have had another liberty throttled.

With sincere respect, I have to ask how politicians or political pundits are any more accountable than Hollywood, record labels and recording artists, bloggers, writers, video game makers, etc.?

 

Honestly?

 

I'l:

 

Your sincere respect is appreciated and noted.

 

The written and spoken word have power regardless of its origin. No question.

 

However, in this particular case we have violence against a politician. I probably listen to a wider variety of music than most people in their 40s/50s (sadly approaching) and I don't recall much in the form of music that could possibly be linked to violence against politicians. The only tenuous link you can make between the spoken word and violence against pols is that of the talking heads on cable.

This could be the post he is talking about, if he was talking about you (not saying he was).

 

This is your first post in this thread. Reads a whole lot to me like you're placing blame. If not why include it in this thread? If you're trying to make a causal effect then I would say that it has every bit as much a causal effect as Phelps says that the American lifestyle has and is every bit as misguided and despicable.

 

It was a sarcastic summation of the dismissive post of most on here about the topic.

And that "in between" is the subject, and has long been the subject, of the political dialogue, debate and discussion in this country.

 

For me, enacting a law that limits one's individual liberties only is justified when there is a very compelling need to do so. Saving one life, a hundred lives or a thousand lives may not be compelling enough to take away some liberties. No surprise here, but the right to own a gun and 30 round clips is a much more important right than being able to go onto a plane without being scanned. Others will surely disagree and that's fine.

 

Nothing pops my cork faster than when some one in support of some law that will impact my liberties says "it if only saves one life, it will be worth it". Perhaps it will to that person, but not to me. If we enact laws to save every life from everything other than dieing from natural causes at the ripe old age of 90, we will not be free people. I'm sorry the Congresswoman died; very sorry. But I wouldn't have supported banning 30 round clips even if I knew in advance it would have saved her life (or mine for that matter).

 

Personally I think the whole cross hairs symbol demagogery on here and in the media is way over the top. The word target has long been used and accepted when referring to a political opponent. I see nothing wrong with that. Certain politicians are being targeted to be beat. Using the cross hairs, which is nothing other than a symbol of targeting, doesn't bother me either.

 

What is bothersome is that some of the same people attacking Palin for her use of the cross hairs symbol and for ratching up the political extremist dialogue are engaging in the exact same stuff on here.

 

The guy who pulled the trigger is a wacko. If we have to avoid every word, avoid every expression, and not use any symbol that may spur some wacko from doing something dangerous, we will have had another liberty throttled.

 

I agree with the "if it saves one life" thinking.

 

Note: the congresswoman didn't die.

Anyone who thinks this is the fault of some lame Sarah Palin website or map is about as insane as the gunman.

 

Seriously, it's sickening to see people both on here and in the media (from either side) trying to use a tragedy like this as a political tool. Shame on those people.

 

We don't agree a lot, but we are agreed here.

I concur with both statements.

Your sincere respect is appreciated and noted.

 

The written and spoken word have power regardless of its origin. No question.

 

However, in this particular case we have violence against a politician. I probably listen to a wider variety of music than most people in their 40s/50s (sadly approaching) and I don't recall much in the form of music that could possibly be linked to violence against politicians. The only tenuous link you can make between the spoken word and violence against pols is that of the talking heads on cable.

 

I would think if anything, a stronger case could be made for the internet. Some of the sites out there astonish me with their hatred. At least there is some restriction on what can be said on radio/tv.

Hopefully, this will lead to some common sense gun law revisions. Is there a true need for a 30-shot clip? Shouldn't we require that states send criminal and mental health data to a national database? Shouldn't we require permits?

 

The shooter wouldn't have been in such national database.

I liked the point that was made by someone that if you think it is worse now, what about our "great" Founding Fathers who would just take pistols and go duel and kill each other.

I would think if anything, a stronger case could be made for the internet. Some of the sites out there astonish me with their hatred. At least there is some restriction on what can be said on radio/tv.

 

AMEN!

The shooter wouldn't have been in such national database.

 

So we shouldn't have a database because this guy wouldn't have made it? It's an all-or-nothing situation?

It was a sarcastic summation of the dismissive post of most on here about the topic.

 

That was the post I was referring to. If it wasn't aimed at pointing blame on Palin or the right, what was the purpose of it's inclusion in the thread?

 

My apologies for it taking me all of an hour and a half or so to respond. Every now and then, I have to actually do a little bit of work. :lol:

I would think if anything, a stronger case could be made for the internet. Some of the sites out there astonish me with their hatred. At least there is some restriction on what can be said on radio/tv.

 

This.

I think everyone, or at least most rational people, know that the violent and hateful rhetoric needs to be toned down by both sides, but it shouldn't have taken an incident like this to make that apparent.

I think everyone, or at least most rational people, know that the violent and hateful rhetoric needs to be toned down by both sides, but it shouldn't have taken an incident like this to make that apparent.

 

 

AGREE 1000000%!

I'm not talking about you, if that's what you're hinting at.

That isn't it, but if you're going to make the accusation, why not name the offender?