We at the Progressive Policy Institute are heartsick over the senseless attack Saturday on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which also claimed the lives of six people, including a nine-year-old girl. Not only is Gabby our friend, she is an exemplar of the pragmatic progressivism that puts country before party. We pray for her recovery, and grieve for those who will never recover from this rampage.
As if this tragedy were not bad enough, some pundits have disgraced themselves by using it to score political points and vindicate their own particular stance. Thus, we're instructed that the attack was the inevitable result of a climate of hostility created by the Tea Party, or Sarah Palin, or anti-immigration groups in Arizona. There's no evidence this is true, but political gladiators apparently can't help themselves.
We've refrained from commenting until now in hopes of learning more about the motives of the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. It seems he suffers from severe mental illness and was animated by his own inner demons, rather than "vitriol" in the atmosphere.
The political finger-pointing that has followed the shooting has been revolting. It's not too early to start grappling with some of the pertinent questions this tragedy actually raises. We'd highlight three:
First, why is it so easy for mentally disturbed individuals to acquire handguns in America? The gun shop that sold Loughner the semiautomatic Glock 19 apparently ran a background check. Why did it not turn up the fact that the suspect had recently been booted out of a community college for his erratic and disruptive behavior? Surely more rigorous checks are in order and don't impair the basic right to gun ownership.
And what public purpose is served by allowing citizens to buy high-capacity magazines more suitable for war than self-protection? These were covered under the ban on assault weapons passed on President Clinton's watch, which has since lapsed. Let's hope the Tucson massacre gives fresh impetus to reinstating it.
Second, how is it that we lack the legal tools to protect society against mentally unhinged people before they turn violent? Most people with serious mental illnesses aren't dangerous, but some are. Obviously, it's hard to assess such risks in advance. Yet when people exhibit patterns of bizarre and sociopathic behavior -- as did the alleged suspect in Tucson, and as did Seung-Hui Cho, who massacred 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007 -- they shouldn't simply be left to their own devices. Determining how to preempt the potential for violence entails careful thought and a delicate calibration of individual rights and public safety. But society can't simply look the other way as individuals descend into madness.
Third, will this attack result in erecting new barriers between elected representatives and the people? As we have seen since 9/11, elected officials have a tendency to overreact to acts of violence, erecting elaborate and costly security shields against low-probability threats. Will Members of Congress now demand bodyguards and be enveloped in security cocoons like the president? If the Tucson attack leads to a greater separation between politicians and those who elect them, it will have dealt a serious blow to our democracy.
it was a lefty congressman that made that statement about a righty actually.
http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#axzz1B7nJgfGA
That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#ixzz1B7pwNBEL
Just reminding them that noted conservative thinker William F. Buckley smoked pot; famous conservative author Ayn Rand was an atheist; and esteemed conservative columnist Robert Novak thought 9/11 was an inside job.
and will do everything in it's power to stop all gun control efforts, no matter how small, the
tragic events of this past weekend will continue to repeat themselves. There is a massive conflict
of interest at the heart of republican ideology and that is using guns control issues to drive fund
raising to all time highs ( the red meat ) while quietly,anonymously attempting to pass gun
legislation. The last point is of concern, How could politicians even thing of calling for more
security for themselves be possible when they are stoking up the fears of their base.
One way to get a handle on that could be to have a threshold,,, use heated rhetoric and lose
your security provisions. That might force them to think before opening their big yaps.
Say something we don't like, and we will remove your security detail.
Question: Who gets to decide what is and isn't heated rhetoric?
who said that the present Fl. governor should be shot. Another is that former house
leader Nancy Pelosi should be poisoned. As to how and who gets to decide what is and
isn't heated rhetoric, I wish that I could provide a direct link to those comments because
in todays climate taking some ones word that they were said seems woefully inadequate.
How's that working out for us?
california spending billions on new busses.
so is oregon. and lightrails.
all across the nation a trillion in stimulus dollars are being used for state gov pet projects while they starve the people and thats FACT jack.
Beginning with Richard Nixon inventing the "Silent Majority" in order to drown out protest against the wars in SouthEast Asia, invasion of Cambodia and his personal corruption., theyspent years enshrining themselves as the only loyal,virtuous Americans, Judge anyone who disagreed
Fox News, "Christian" Right, Beck, Limbaugh, O"Reilly: the list goes on. pill addicts, adulterers and corrupt Conservaives inciting hatred against those who get in the way of their power and profits! The ranting Limbaugh, Beck and O"Reilly prove once again, that they will twist reality into whatever makes their views correct, whatever will strike fear into the hearts of those who follow them. The ancient art of dehumanizing enemies and inciting against them needs to come to a stop. They are all they accuse others of. They are a stain on what the best of this country can be.
Please listen to them no more!
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/did-barack-obamas-violent-rhetoric-inspire-mass-murder-in-arizona/
Not promoting the website. I have no idea whose blog it is. It just happened to have a collection of Obama's "violent" quotes.
the author of this very article used targets in democrat campaigns.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?c
As tragic as the events in Tucson were, and they were tragic............the sad fact is that over 16000 people are murdered in the United States every year. Why?
If we don't address that one simple question, statistically it's just a matter of time before another "newsworthy" tragedy occurs.
In the days ahead, I suspect we'll learn why Mr. Loughner was never charged with making death threats and it will likely land back with the Sheriff who seems to be covering his butt. I find it amazing given this guy's history of mental illness and threatening bahavior the Sheriff failed to make more of an effort to protect his community.
Is this your logic?
his school declared him a threat.
had the sheriff bothered to investigate?
I would repeat that in CA, anyway, you can definitely call the police when someone is acting bizarre and threatening, and the police will make a judgment on the spot and take the person in for observation in state hospitals. There they can be observed for 3 days.
His parents, also, could have reached out for help. The mental health community helps parents through the current mire of gaining custodianship in such cases. It's certainly been made more difficult, given the proactive civil rights groups.
It wouldn't have mattered if there was a 3 day wait. The fact is that nothing would have shown up on his record. The police gave him a pass.
And they need to examine their policies in light of this tragedy. Perhaps that's why the sheriff was so quick to point the finger towards talk radio rather than at police policies. Perhaps he knew already what had NOT been done.
Sarah Palin's attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.
The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "_terrorist" and "kiII him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.
But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.
The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/3405336/Sarah-Palin-blamed-by-the-US-Secret-Service-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d2a2a998935ffeb,0
You can draw a time line directly back to Palin being nominated”
http://www.pafcoalition.org/budget/
A day will come when America is forced to end it's maddening love affair with these destructive weapons.
My father served in WWII. My brother is a lifer in the Navy. My parents were both public school teachers and taught literally tens of thousands of kids during their careers. They are all committed liberals. Don't you dare, sir. Don't you dare lay blame on this tragedy at the feet of Americans who simply disagree with your world view. We are not the enemy, we too serve, we raise families, we work hard, we believe in our country, we serve the common good.
Your sanctimonious and finger-pointing rant is simply incorrect. You are an old man who is shouting at clouds. And you do not know your history, which is clear by your claim that we were "Once a Conservative American Society". Yah. You mean when women couldn't vote? Or that part where we had slaves? Or the tidbit about forcing Native Americans off their own lands? Exactly what part of American history are you talking about? What is your ideal time? I'm sure it can be shown that the time you pine for either never really existed, or only was a good time for your particular demographic.
Read some real history and learn some real facts. Outside of the Puritans, our society was founded by PROGRESSIVES... and dare I say it... IMMIGRANTS. That you don't know and understand this speaks volumes about your lack of education.