BANG !

[historyforall]

I am a strong supporter of the idea that if you take everyone's arms away they will have a hard time opening doors. I do agree though that if you take away the right of a person to own a gun in this country, you make the government stronger. I also support that in exchange for everyone having the right to own a gun we should have a skeleton national army. All that military funding should go into making our people smarter, stronger and healthier. This is the true idea of a well regulated militia, for our local and national defense. To say that it gives me the right to have what ever weapon I want is not logical. If I want to hunt with a modern high powered sniper rifle is it my right? Even though if I miss my target that bullet has a range of 4 more miles to hit something is it still my right? It falls under the battle of rights issues, by preserving one right you are taking away anothers. It doesnt say small arm it says arms, so I should have the right to arm myself with any style and size weapon created. So if I want to fire my 155 mm M-198 howitzer at that deer but take away your right to life which is more important? I understand these are silly questions but I can introduce you to real people who think under the 2nd amendment that they have the right to own aything from automatics to nuclear weapons.

I do support gun ownership but I support more penalties for the misuse of these weapons and the ability to lose that right. If you use a gun in the act of a crime than you should always be charged as if you tried to kill the victim of that crime. If you say words like we need to target, pull the trigger and reload when talking about political opponets than you should lose your right to own a gun. Any verbal threat should be taken as a threat and result in the loss of the right.

As far as mental health goes that is a cop out used by way to many pro-gun supporters, who then have a heart attack when you talk about actually putting more restrictions on someone who may be mental. No gun owner is going to submit themselves to yearly evaluations to determine if they are sane enought to own a gun. If you go by what people say as a criteria to lock them up before they kill someone than Palin and Rush would of been locked up long ago as well as millions of others from all sides who hate the government. I have heard people in our own county say crazy stuff about Clinton, Bush and Obama should I have them thrown in an insane asylum?

[Wise One]

For whatever reasons, neither the public nor the politicians seem to really care how many Americans are murdered — unless it’s in a terror attack by foreigners. The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it. The horror prompted by the attack in Tucson on Saturday will pass. The outrage will fade. The murders will continue.

That's a sad observation. I'd like to dismiss it as overly cynical, but realism forces me to acknowledge that it is true. We've are in a continuous cycle of mayhem against ordinary people, which is not even noticed. We do notice when prominent people are victims, but forget it completely in a few days.

The National Rifle Association has run perhaps the most successful propaganda campaign in history. It should be the textbook example for marketeers on how to make people believe things that are untrue, and to motivate them to choose actions that are contrary to their own interest. I wish that skills of critical analysis were more fully developed in the general population, but that depends on so many things (education; culture; exposure to broadening experiences like travel, reading, getting information from diverse sources, genetics, ...) that it is unlikely to happen.

Here is how the NRA has moved public opinion over the years:





.

(reference)

[crux]

Nice full post. You make many points. Here's a few thoughts...

At the time of the writing of the 2nd, Americans had RIFLES. The long rifle, with a "rifled" barrel was the pinnacle of firearms technology at that time. This, and private ownership and use there of, was a critical reason for the success of the American Revolution.

The pistol, or handgun, has always been by design, a defensive weapon. Guns, like any tool can be misused.Individual rights, our Natural Rights, like Self Defense, should not be overly regulated due to technological improvement. Sure this is subjective, and the STUFF, of regulation and Liberty itself. I would not like folks to own Rocket Launchers either!

Anyway, the use of a gun in the commission of a crime like say, robbery, certainly incurs a far elevated charge, and penalty.

As for an automatic murder charge... hmmmmmm. Let's zero in on your next point instead...

If you say words like we need to target, pull the trigger and reload when talking about political opponets than you should lose your right to own a gun. Any verbal threat should be taken as a threat and result in the loss of the right.

You seem to be mixing up MARTIAL METAPHOR as used universally in the written and spoken language every day, with some sort of criminal act, like Assault or making TRUE verbal threats...


crux

PS...martial metaphor IS used UNIVERSALLY...it is not a verbal flourish of the Right...

[crux]

Politics come into play! I would argue the assault upon Gun Rights by the Left, left a bad taste in folk's mouths...

The Dems over-reached to some great extent! It cost them in at the election polls and the opinion polls.

The gun issue for the left is a hot potato for a bunch of the public, like the abortion issue has been for the right.

Americans have ALWAYS cherished their LIBERTY, and the Right to Keep and Bear is one of those FUNDAMENTAL Individual Rights.

[Wise One]

Americans have ALWAYS cherished ... the Right to Keep and Bear ...

Untrue at worst, a slanted distortion at best.

[coondog]

I suppose the discussion of "gun rights" is as always, inevitable........and as usual, pointless.

In the wake of yet another senseless tragedy, we unerringly come around to getting hung up on
the method rather than the mentality. If he'd had a smaller clip, maybe he wouldn't have gotten
off so many shots! If guns were banned, this wouldn't have happened! Well, if he'd run over those
people with a big pick up truck, we wouldn't be talking about "gun rights'....at least not today.

But, had the method been a big pick up truck, we would not be talking about banning the use of
automobiles. That analogy may sound a bit ludicrous, but when you think about it, those four
wheeled death traps are responsible for slaughter on a daily basis. Some people should not be
allowed to have automobiles. Some people should not be allowed to have guns. Both are an
inevitable reality. We need rules for the operation of both. But, we cannot adequately legislate
the misuse of either.

Nor can we anticipate the actions of the mentally disturbed, the desperate, the ignorant. I would
imagine that the influences which lead to such circumstances as are illustrated in Tucson are
many and varied. Quite possibly, no single event or influence is directly responsible. However,
to suggest that public pronouncements by influential people (or similar statements issued by more
casual acquaintances...or family) which appear to sanction such actions don't have an some
potential affect is completely disingenuous.

Quite predictably, left wing pundits argue that bombastic statements concerning 2nd amendment
solutions and "taking out" folks have the potential to tip the scales toward such taking of action. This
is, after all, what they've been warning about since such statements were made. The right wing
pundits deny that the potential for any such direct cause and effect even exists.

I really don't think there is enough evidence that, in this particular case, specific influences can
be identified. At least not to this point. I also do not think any such cause and effect can yet be
ruled out. So let's just consider generalities and wait for the forensics, Nancy Grace!

As I said, we cannot know what drives the average mentally deranged homicidal nut case over
the edge. Something said by Sharon Angle or written by Lenin (Vladimir - not John) may well be
the final item which inspires brooding contemplation to become action.....or one of many
along the way...or none at all. But, it may very well influence the object or method to which such
action is directed.

One of many......yet, influential all the same.

Somewhere, lost in all this trite discussion over free speech and gun control, is the inescapable
lack of attention and resources paid to the state of Mental Health in this country. As we continue
to argue over whether utilization of free speech and/or gun rights ensure consequences, it seems
we will continue to ignore the consequences of mental impairment. There are deficiencies in our
system in this regard which are mind boggling and the only time mental health issues become
recognized is when they are designated as unnecessary expenditures or programs. Even, under
these extreme circumstances, it is secondary to political posturing and speculation over 'facts'
not even in evidence.

We hear, "somebody should have done something....this guy was obviously dangerous". So, exactly
who do we expect to do something? The structure for that kind of intervention has been categorically
dismantled for decades. And....the people who should be spending their time and efforts devising
methods to address this issue are too busy talking about 2nd Amendment Remedies.

We need to concentrate less on the method and more on the Madness.



Coondog

If you can't acknowledge responsibility for your words.......don't say 'em!

[crux]

Americans have ALWAYS cherished their LIBERTY, and the Right to Keep and Bear is one of those FUNDAMENTAL Individual Rights.

I will stand by my assertion, which your condensation diminishes...

The old west, or Wild West was a dangerous place. Bandits and Indians were a REAL threat to all who traveled it's unsettled spaces. If you lived or traveled these landscapes, you went armed. There was no State Police, well-lit areas, cell phones, or 911...

Folks would come into town to trade, carouse, and DRINK. Drunk cowboys were bad for business...and dangerous. Today we have all manner of gun laws that define our Liberty. You can not carry a weapon in Virginia and drink in a bar...

I chose my words carefully, and LIBERTY to carry in TOMBSTONE was LIMITED. When coming to town, you had to check your guns in at the Sheriff's... Was it ALWAYS restricted thus? NO. Were there time sensitive social political REASONS to NOT carry in that SMALL town? Perhaps so, and there was more to the story as the author intimates.

Further the author says,

"There are comparisons between the horror that unfolded in Tucson on Saturday morning, and the bloodshed on that cold October day in Tombstone, 130 years ago".

Well yesss, and NO. Certainly gun laws in both cases were BEING BROKEN, by determined men, willing to ignore them...

The situations in time and place and circumstances were very different. A sort of political power confrontation at the O.K. Corral.

In the "tombstone of today", a lone Jackwagon shot up a group of innocents out of some obsession, he had with his pro-gun "Individual Rights" 2nd amendment Democrat Representative over his own loony ideals...

"Even the Tombstone town council of 1880 realized that some people with guns have intent to kill—and that reasonable laws could help stop them".

This is one of your Logic Fallacies!

We all realize, Gabby knows, and the Conservative Judge Roll who was pro 2nd Amendment like Gabby knew, "that some people with guns have intent to kill"... As I said above, and what you and the author FAIL to recognize, is that "reasonable laws" no matter HOW TOTAL, "could ((NOT)) help stop them"...

THERE ARE PLENTY OF LAWS. Psychotic people should not have guns. This derelict was disconnected from reality, AND HIS NEIGHBORS, FRIENDS, AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE OFFICIALS KNEW IT... PIMA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES KNEW IT!
THE SHERIFF KNEW IT!! HE HAD MADE NUMEROUS DEATH THREATS & HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO GO UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION BUT PIMA COUNTY DROPPED THE BALL. DUPNIK DROPPED THE BALL!! ARIZONA HAS SOME OF THE MOST LIBERAL LAWS WHEN IT COMES TO CORRALLING THESE KINDS OF LUNATICS BUT ALL I GET FROM SHERIFF DUPNIK, THE AUTHOR AND YOU, IS POLITICIZATION, BLAME SHIFTING, AND OBFUSCATION!!!!

Mexico is a big gun-control experiment. Chicago. D.C.... Gun Free Zones, no matter how TOTAL, sadly come with the proverbial victims, who might have protected themselves and others, if they had themselves been armed...

crux

By the way, one of the folks who tackled the turd was a CCW permit holder who SAW THE PERPS GLOCK WAS LOCKED BACK EMPTY AND LATCHED ONTO THE JERK...and had the presence of mind NOT to draw his own weapon...

[crux]

Golly...90% in agreement here, except for the ugly 10%.

You continue to play the Dem talking point song,

Quite predictably, left wing pundits argue that bombastic statements concerning 2nd amendment
solutions and "taking out" folks have the potential to tip the scales toward such taking of action. This
is, after all, what they've been warning about since such statements were made. The right wing
pundits deny that the potential for any such direct cause and effect even exists.

MARTIAL METAPHOR is UNIVERSAL and NOT a verbal frolic of the RIGHT...

To not recognize this is to just shut your ears, eyes and mind.

Also, if a psychotic latches onto skull shrines, The Communist Manifesto, Gabby's words, Chris Mathew's words, Obama's words, Marijuana as the New Currency, Helter Skelter by The Beatles, The DLC's congressional "target" map OR Palin's for that matter, or some other "trigger", and LASHES out, it is still the VOICE IN THEIR OWN HEAD that is at fault.

Seriously 'dog. Don't be so obtuse in your otherwise fairly acute post.

crux

[Wise One]

Coondog, nice posting as usual. Allow me to quibble over small points. (it's so fun)

But, had the method been a big pick up truck, we would not be talking about banning the use of automobiles.

No serious person is talking about banning guns either. But we do advocate rules as sensible for guns as the rules we demand for trucks.

Another point. You will notice that gunnies always cast their arguments in terms of protection from criminals or, for the true crazies, in terms of protection from our government. The latter is so ridiculous (ask the boys at Ruby Ridge and Waco how that worked out for them) I won't respond.

Our principal danger is not from criminals, but from ourselves. The vast majority of gun slayings occur when the victim is friend, spouse, or acquaintance of the killer. This is a public health issue, ordinary people killing other ordinary people simply because a gun is at hand. Fists have a lower mortality rate than guns.

[crux]

...check out the FBI Crime statistics 1960-2009 at: http://www.nraila.org/crime/us.xls

...also More Guns Less Crime...for the numbers and footnotes: read http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets ... &issue=007 ...as I am just copying the text, which is short.

"Gun Ownership Rises to All-Time High,
Violent Crime Falls to 35-Year Low"

"Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery.1 Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low.2 At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million. Predictions by gun control supporters, that increasing the number of guns, particularly handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” would cause crime to increase, have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance.4

More Guns: There are well over 250 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., including nearly 100 million handguns and tens of millions of “assault weapons”—the types of firearms that gun control supporters have tried the hardest to get banned5—and the number of firearms typically rises about 4 million per year.6 Annual numbers of new AR-15s, the most popular semi-automatic rifle that gun control supporters call an “assault weapon,” are soaring. In 2008, there were more than 337,000 new AR-15s configured for home defense, competition, training, recreational target practice and hunting.7 NRA-supported Instant Check firearm transactions have increased over 10 percent annually since 2006.8

Less Gun Control: Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal “assault weapon” ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters’ agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent. Accordingly, some states have eliminated obsolete waiting periods and purchase permit requirements. There are now 40 Right-to-Carry states, an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987. All states have hunter protection laws, 48 have range protection laws, 48 prohibit local gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, 33 have “castle doctrine” laws protecting the right to use guns in self-defense, and Congress and 33 states prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.9 Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime.10 The FBI doesn’t list gun control as one of the many factors that determine the type and level of crime from place to place.11"

crux

[crux]

No serious person is talking about banning guns either. But we do advocate rules as sensible for guns as the rules we demand for trucks.

As you know, there are a good number of "serious person(s)" in the country who DO seek to ban guns, or say, handguns, or semi-automatic weapons, or pump action guns. They vote for representatives, who would be "serious people" to pursue these aims... You are perhaps one of these well intentioned folks as at your core, you do not support the Individual Rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You are serious right?

Another point. You will notice that gunnies always cast their arguments in terms of protection from criminals or, for the true crazies, in terms of protection from our government. The latter is so ridiculous (ask the boys at Ruby Ridge and Waco how that worked out for them) I won't respond.

What the heck are you talking about?

The Right to Keep AND Bear for SELF DEFENSE is an INHERENT Right, under our constitution. I know you disagree. We are legitimately concerned about maintaining the CHOICE to exercise our Right to Self Defense. Some of us CHOOSE to take on this HEADY responsibility. Yes, against those who would KILL us or our loved ones.

Our principal danger is not from criminals, but from ourselves. The vast majority of gun slayings occur when the victim is friend, spouse, or acquaintance of the killer. This is a public health issue, ordinary people killing other ordinary people simply because a gun is at hand. Fists have a lower mortality rate than guns.

Sir. I know you think very highly about your intellect, rationality, and critical thinking. So check this out... Your statement reads as gobbledy gook. Our principle danger is from criminals, who may very likely be "loved ones", or AQUANTANCES. Should these seek to RAPE, commit viscious BATTERY, or MURDER, they become CRIMINALS, against which we may wish to DEFEND OURSELVES... "Public health ISSUE?" You can call this what you will. Fists, and any other WEAPON can KILL.


crux

[crux]

Your post of the gal suggesting the black birds fell from the sky as of God's anger over Arkansas' DADT reversal reminds me of George Will's column of today, where we seek to explain that which we can not, or is tragic. It goes to the issues raised within this RECENT thread concerning the Jackwagon in Tuscon.

It is short.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03685.html

crux

By the way I do try to really address your points, take them seriously, and wish you to know, I care deeply about them, have thought long and hard about them, and continue to...

I believe you do too, for the most part...

crux

[Wise One]

Your statement reads as gobbledy gook. Our principle danger is from criminals, who may very likely be "loved ones", or AQUANTANCES. Should these seek to RAPE, commit viscious BATTERY, or MURDER, they become CRIMINALS, against which we may wish to DEFEND OURSELVES... "Public health ISSUE?" You can call this what you will. Fists, and any other WEAPON can KILL.

This argument, passionately put and evidently earnestly felt, is priceless in its circularity.

I fail to transport my dirty dishes to the dishwasher, angering my wife who is usually a good person and has never been charged with a crime. For her this is the last staw, so she reaches into the drawer, pulls out the family gun that we keep for "safety against intruders", and shoots me dead.

I claim I was shot by my wife, not by a criminal because she has never before been charged and convicted of a crime. You claim I was shot by a criminal, because the act itself converts her into one.

On your argument, one can never be shot by one's wife, only by a "criminal."

Who is right?

[crux]

Please. You regularly MISS what I claim. ...just sayin.

Now to your ill-logic:

Your wife who is usually a "good person" might get angry at you for being a slob, but, if she pulls out a gun, and irrationally, or with some malice of forethought, shoots you, she will perhaps (despite your claim that she is merely your wife) be charged with some CRIME.

Now, if convicted of a "criminal act", because you DID press charges, or because the State by law could give you NO choice in the matter, she will be, by definition, a CRIMINAL. (sorry about that man!)

Furthermore, unless you wish to FINALLY, after ALL OF THIS, divorce her, as you'd been too much in denial through all of those years of psychotic hen-pecking to have picked up on the DANGER of you all having a gun in your house...or STAYING WITH HER for that matter...she will ALSO be your "wife".

(and thank GOODNESS, by the way, you two GEMS never had KIDS!!)

crux

Good Night finally...

[coondog]

I seem to have ruffled the fur of both crux and WO in the same post. Fabulous! Coondog is an equal opportunity annoyance. One additional thought on guns.

You will notice that gunnies always cast their arguments in terms of protection from criminals or, for the true crazies, in terms of protection from our government. The latter is so ridiculous (ask the boys at Ruby Ridge and Waco how that worked out for them) I won't respond.

Again, the method is not (or should not be) the issue. But since it's, nevertheless, doomed to be a large part of the discussion, I will simply offer this:

Most of us "gunnies" never have an occasion to confront true crazies, criminals or government bureaucrats with warrants to confiscate our coveted private property. Yet, like money, a gun in times of need is better than need at a time without one. Waco & Ruby Ridge are good examples of extreme paranoia and ill advised resistance against overwhelming odds. While they were defensive stances rather than proactive initiatives, they do serve to illustrate two points: 1) In neither instance did the government come out looking good. The prospect of such occurrences taking place all across the country under the auspices of gun control is unthinkable. 2) Inane comments about second amendment solutions serve only to inflame the lunatic fringe, because no rational person (except maybe Chuck Norris) is going to take on the armed forces of the US of A. That would be Madness!

So how do we stop the Madness? Banning guns or any aspect there of would be about as effective as banning drugs or pornography. Banning forms of speech? I don't think so!

We have just as much right in this country to say stupid things as we have to wave firearms around while we're saying them. Vocalized ideas are too far removed from their potential consequences to admit that the content might be inflammatory. We can wait for an event where direct cause and effect is undeniable. Shouldn't have to wait too long. But that won't really affect most people's entrenched attitudes or need for defensive denial.

Surveyor's Marks? Really?

I had the opportunity today to listen to both Sarah Palin's statements and those made by Nancy Pilosi on the floor of the House. Whatever you think of the two of them, it is clear why Nancy is in a position of power in the government and why Sarah is better suited for her current role as Circus Clown.

The Madness! You can inspire it with words or enable it with guns, but there is no system in place to address Madness in its developing stages......before it becomes tragedy. There should be. Past the age of 18, there is no way to compel an individual to seek help, even if the need is compelling. The only vehicle available is law enforcement. Once laws are broken, an involuntary mental evaluation can be ordered. Law enforcement is not geared that way, however, and the available services in the area of treatment and detention are woefully inadequate and uncoordinated. And, of course, in the absence of some heinous act, the rights of the individual needs be protected to prevent abuse.

This is the real problem and it is a complex one. It will not be addressed or solved if we continue to spend all our efforts discussing impossibilities like gun control or getting people like Sarah Palin to shut up.

Coondog
Good Lord, what madness rules in brainsick men. Henry VI Part 1, 4. 1. William Shakespeare

[crux]

You are the Tea'dog!

Coondog is an equal opportunity annoyance.

HARDLY -2%

We have just as much right in this country to say stupid things as we have to wave firearms around while we're saying them.

OR not so stupid things! -2%

Check out this conservative black Arizonan man at an Obama rally, legally carrying, who is soooo scaaaary...

Vocalized ideas are too far removed from their potential consequences to admit that the content might be inflammatory. We can wait for an event where direct cause and effect is undeniable. Shouldn't have to wait too long. But that won't really affect most people's entrenched attitudes or need for defensive denial. Surveyor's Marks? Really?

I am unclear as to the last bit. However, a violent act of a crazy paranoid schizophrenic loon, EVEN if in the FINAL analysis are TRIGGERED by something someone said, are STILL the personal responsibility OF THE PERPETRATOR. -2%

Pelosi v. Palin? On philosophy of governance, and public policy, or even say, tone and words? -4%

Are you sure you watched all 7:42? Judas Priest Man! How do you begin to DISAGREE with what she said?

I just now listened to the words she spoke. I mean you HAVE to agree with at least 95.8% of what she said?
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011 ... sible.html

You really need to TRY to LISTEN to this again... I just do not know HOW you can disagree with her statement, essentially.

Seriously.

crux

[Sam]

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

[coondog]

ON SARAH

Well, it looks like I lose a lot of points for my take on Sarah Palin. I won't try to pretend that I have
any use for the woman. I don't!

I recognize, though, that her bread n' butter is outrageous, divisive and usually wrong statements
with a dash of American Pie thrown in that appeal to a certain, shall we say, unsophisticated mind
set. Bring her down to a reasonable level of civility (or a civil level of reason) and she is no more
interesting or compelling than your average country music singer.

I also recognize that gun issues, real or imagined, are her crutch. Her image as a gun-totin, pioneer
type, scrappy pilliager of pick-a-nic baskets is what brings in the loot, the moolah......which is clearly
of greater importance to her than any coherent policy concern or sense of responsibility.

Why the media bothers to focus on her is as mysterious as her love - hate relationship with it. She
seems to like it when her exercise of free speech involving denegration of nearly everybody not on her
doner list is the object of discussion. She's not too keen on it when she becomes the object of
someone else's free speech.

But, again, that's just Sarah being Sarah.

But why, in this circumstance, was Sarah criticized? Because of her graphic depicting targeted
democratic districts! The one with 'crosshairs' over those districts and the accompanying gun-
related rhetoric which Gabby Giffords (the object of one of those in the 'crosshairs") had just recently
commented on, warning of potential consequences.

Was there a direct cause and effect? Probably not! I don't know if anybody of any stature
actually made that accusation. Many did say that it was in bad form, both before and after the
Tucson shootings. I understand the graphic was taken down shortly thereafter. It's mere speculation
on my part, but I suspect that recognition in retrospect of the callousness of that graphic sunk in at
some subliminal level.

The most interesting part of that saga was Sarah's aide telling Fox News that those crosshairs were
"never, ever, ever" intended to represent gun sights. Never ever! They were Surveying Crosshairs.
Fox News bought that and ran with it. Coondog does not buy that, but does appreciate the ingenuity
involved in concocting such an absurdely unbelievable walk back. Surveying Crosshairs!

Like........she wasn't really taking aim on that elk......she was simply locating it geographically.

On the plus side, maybe those who throw their lot in with Sarah (either because they adhere to her views
or they think she's 'hot') may now start bringing tripods and sextants to political rallies in lieu of ..........
those other things.

Ah, Sarah being Sarah!

From the tone of her U-Tube address, I seriously doubt any number of calls for civility are going to affect
her manner or methodology. Which, I suppose is just fine with her fan base. They're not likely to be
swayed by calls for civility, either. And....I also suppose it serves some purpose to provide a standard
of kookiness by which all other kookiness is measured. How else would we even know what "blood
liable" actually means?

Coondog

We AIM to please.......geographically speaking, that is!

[ParkerLongbaugh]

It is absurd for anyone to stand there and claim common graphics like that are anything but a bullseye. The political spin that claims they are not bullseyes is just as dishonest as the political spin that claim it matters and caused these murders.

Heck, even just using Arizona as the example you can easily find both sides doing the exact same thing, including to Gifford herself:

[crux]

Palin has herself called them "Bullseyes"...

I will go with this, not what some aide said, agreeing with the suggestion by some radio host.

If they are IN FACT "surveyor's marks" literally and placed as graphics on a map by a hired graphic design company, the intent is the same, marking with crosshairs, crosses, crosshatches whatever...

TARGETING the "20" for POLITICAL defeat. FIRING a political SALVO, This is about a political CAMPAIGN... a political BATTLE in BATTLEGROUND states or districts, seeking political DEFEAT or, VICTORY...

This is really metaphorical speech. The surveyors marks sounds silly at best, even if true, it would be silly to back away from any strong stand defending the use of martial language which is clearly not an actual threat of violence... silly...

Nice post by the way 'dog... Seriously. Quality work. ...excepting it's lack of civility...but quintessentially, YOU.

crux
_____________________

It is nice to know that no one of any stature suggested a linkage between Palin and those murders in Tuscon. I'm clear.