Because I'm getting tired of yelling it at my TV let me set it down here. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER that Jared Loughner was motivated by any of the following:
Sarah Palin
Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
The Tea Party
Talk Radio
Fox News
Violent Rhetoric
Anti Government Rhetoric
Right wing Rhetoric
Crosshair Posters
Walmart
Any other type of Rhetoric
Violent Video Games
The Iraq War
The Afghan War
George Bush
The NRA
Global Warming
Climate Change
Gun Owners Of America
Hanging Chads
The CIA
The Vatican
Dick Cheney
The Loch Ness Monster
Rising Taxes
High Medical Expenses
Bankrupt Medicare
Taxes on the Rich
The shifting Magnetic Poles
Wikileaks
The 2006 Election
Deem And Pass
Rational thought Of Any Kind
If you believe (or say you believe) any of the above then you are demonstrating your inability to think logically. And if you do it in front of me expect to hear some violent rhetoric at high volume... at the very least.
4 comments:
I haven't been quite this disgusted with the Left since the PPACA passed.
In one of the fox interviews, the host asked the sheriff repeatedly, "have you seen any evidence at all, that this guy is influenced by political rhetoric". The guy kept on saying "no, but I am very experienced at this, and my hunch is...". I turned it off after first couple of times, with half the clip left to play.
Have a listen to this idiot...
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/nyc.podcast.play.it/media/d0/d0/d0/dW/dJ/d8/dN/WJ8N_3.MP3%3Fauthtok%3D5561350786328040240_QORqXvRMMHVidhxAlwMG3aETLFY&podcast_name=Look+at+That+Mugshot&podcast_artist=Dave+Ross&station_id=91&tag=pages&dcid=CBS.NY
Dave Ross thinks that the NRA should setup it's own homeland security watch list to keep an eye on everyone... idiot.
Jim,
I listened to his bit and I admit at first glance it seems just as idiotic as you say. But I think you might be assuming that his idea includes ‘more government’, where the NRA is essentially made a government agency and is co-opted and authorized to prevent people from buying guns. But he didn’t actually say that. If you think of it more as a private organization that operates purely without the authority of government to deny or compel, then it actually makes more sense. The example I always raise when talking about this kind of institution is the church. Sin is discouraged through informal means, but unless your particular sin is also against the law, no one drags you off to prison for it.
The only thing we would need to do a ‘non-government’ solution like this would be to permanently exempt the list from use in litigation. If you get rid of the government, you need to keep the lawyers from bringing it back in later.
I’ve actually seen this sort of reaction before – particularly from people who grew up in a place like New Jersey where the government has tried to do everything for everyone for generations. We independent thinkers recoil at the idea of giving government more authority over our lives, but are sometimes just as put off by enabling non-government solutions as well. But a civilized society has rules. They are either laws, or they are other less formal rules. It’s the difference between not doing something because it’s against the law or not doing something because your mom is going to be furious with you when she finds out. Both are effective motivators, (the latter is the better in many cases) and if you don’t have one, you will almost certainly have the other.
I personally would trust the individual judgment of America’s gun dealers before a government agency, but the government already makes ‘denial of service’ an event for litigation. So at the moment their judgment is rendered moot. Under the present law they “MUST” sell when someone isn’t on the appropriate government lists or they potentially open themselves up to charges of racism, class-ism, ageism, or whatever the SPLC and the ACLU can come up with.
Post a Comment