WTF is wrong with these people?

And this is why this nut was upset, not politics, just a schizophrenic question he asked her...



"Mon Jan 10, 9:06 am ET
Friend says Loughner long had a grudge against Giffords
By Liz Goodwin


A close friend of alleged Tucson, Ariz., shooter Jared Loughner tells Mother Jones that he received a voicemail from Loughner hours before the shooting saying, "Hey, man, it's Jared. Me and you had good times. Peace out. Later." The friend immediately suspected Loughner when he heard that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) had been shot.

Loughner, 22, had been angry at Giffords for years and considered her a fake, according to the friend, Bryce Tierney, also 22. Loughner became even angrier when he attended a campaign event and she didn't fully answer his question, Tierney said:


"'He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, "What is government if words have no meaning?"'

"Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. 'He said, "Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question," and I told him, "Dude, no one's going to answer that,"' Tierney recalls. 'Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her.'"

According to an FBI affidavit (PDF via the Washington Post), Loughner had a safe containing a form letter from Giffords and handwritten notes that said "I planned ahead" and "My assassination." Another friend told the Wall Street Journal that Loughner may have become fixated on Giffords "because she was the most accessible" politician.

Tierney told Mother Jones that he greeted news of the shooting with a shock of recognition. "When I heard Gabrielle Giffords has been shot, I was like 'Oh my God. ... ' For some reason I felt like I knew. ... I felt like if anyone was going to shoot her, it would be Jared."

Tierney said Loughner had talked about Giffords for years, though not every day.

"I saw his dream journal once. That's the golden piece of evidence. You want to know what goes on in Jared Loughner's mind, there's a dream journal that will tell you everything," he said
"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

Rather than chipping away at everbody's Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms because of the actions of one nut...

---

"One nut"?
We're the most heavily armed society in the world and have the highest gun death rate in the world.
We have gun massacres all the time...it's neither "unimaginable", "shocking" or isolated...it's the way we live, every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

100% of gun crimes involve guns. I'm not defending the ineffectiveness of our laws.

If he hadn't gotten a gun legally he probably would have gotten one on the black market. Europe has very strict gun laws, yet they have gun related crime even massacres every now and then. Admittedly nowhere near the frequency we do.

If he didn't have a gun he might have made an explosive device, who knows? The point being that the weapon itself was not the cause, it was the method.

---

Pretty standard NRA propaganda.
First line of defense: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Second: "If he didn't get it legally, he'd just get it illegally...so all weapons should be legal".
Third: "If he hadn't used a gun, he'd have built a bomb".

Extension of the logic: "Might as well quit trying to cure cancer...if cancer doesn't kill you, something else will".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

If you clear your eyes from your pissey little fit you will notice I specifically said

Quote:

---

I do agree that we have a very low bar of safety, competence, training and enforcement

---

and

Quote:

---

I'm not defending the ineffectiveness of our laws.

---

I do think we have a dangerously unfettered regulations when it comes to gun access. I just don't agree that this shooter committed his crime because of our gun laws.

---

Quality opposition, there.;)

Hi Kev, long time no see.
Still inscrutable as ever I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Hi Kev, long time no see.
Still inscrutable as ever I see.

---

Yes, as ever.

Other things had the upper hand for a while - not quite sorted, yet.

Working on it.

Good, you've been missed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Good, you've been missed.

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huffington Post

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) recently signaled his intention to submit a piece of legislation that would make exceptions to a number of firearms laws by allowing members of Congress to carry guns in D.C. and even into the Capitol building, including the chamber floors.

"There is a rash of legislation further infringing on Second Amendment rights that has been unwisely proffered in the wake of events in Tucson," Gohmert told The Hill in a statement. "If members of Congress wishes to carry a weapon in the federal District of Columbia, it should be permissible. Accordingly, we are in the process of drafting a bill that will allow members of Congress to do that."

---

I think this is an excellent idea, although I don't believe Gohmert has completely thought it through.
It smacks of liberal elitism to restrict weapons access to just Congress members.
This is America after all, and as the NRA likes to say, "Guns make us safer", ergo more guns make us more saferer.
Besides, as Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday, he wishes one additional person had possessed a firearm in Tucson on Saturday, presumably to use on Jared Lee Loughner.
"I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person, that's all I have to say," Franks said at a briefing.
It sure would be a shame if that one extra armed person wasn't around in the Capitol if needed, so let's increase the odds that won't happen.

Additionally, in keeping with the conservative agenda, all government health care will be removed from the Wash DC area and no insurance company will be forced by anti-free market laws to cover any results of these new proposals.

All members of Congress, their staff and family members will be encouraged to wear smocks with Palinesque crosshairs...er, surveyors marks on the back, so everyone knows who to protect during a fusillade of bullets.

These new policies will both decrease the deficit and spur job growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Besides, as Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday, he wishes one additional person had possessed a firearm in Tucson on Saturday, presumably to use on Jared Lee Loughner.
"I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person, that's all I have to say," Franks said at a briefing.
It sure would be a shame if that one extra armed person wasn't around in the Capitol if needed, so let's increase the odds that won't happen.

---

The problem is that if others draw their guns then confusion sets in as to who the shooter is.
Person 1 is the shooter, person 2 sees the shooter, draws his weapon and fires at person 1. Person 3 doesn't see person 1, he only sees person 2 shooting so he draws his weapon and shoots at person 2. Person 2 being shot at by person 3 returns fire- And so on.

Even well trained military and law enforcement officers can get things wrong during gunfire. The thought of some of the yahoos I know that carry guns playing swat USA- :noes:

Apparently there was someone with a gun at the tail end of this incident. Fortunately he was competent and kept it holstered. http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/0...ady-to-use-it/

I wish that when these folks decided to go on shooting rampages, they at least shot someone worthy of being shot. Like those assholes who protest at soldier funerals. :dry: