Sickend

I am sickened.  My stomach is in knots, and my mind in a daze. Today public servant was shot in the head by a mad gun man.  What do we on Xanga do?  We dive into political fights, about democrats vs. republicans, Conservatives vs. Progressives, what is wrong with us? I myself dove into the fray and as I now look at the comments made by myself and others makes me tremble with disbelief. We attempt to be a society of thought and logic. We are supposed to exchange ideas and beliefs in a But we have fallen into nothing more than a squabbling rabble of political puppets.  There is a time and a place for everything.  But now is not the time for political end fighting. We are disgusting, every one of us who dove into this disaster with the thought of some kind of political gain.  A young child is dead, a judge is dead, and a Representative is shot in the head. Yet all we can do is assign political targets and jump out of the trenches at each other. Look at what is happening.  We should be coming together trying to figure out how to help the family of those who were hurt and killed. WE should be trying to find a way to comfort those who lost someone, not trying to gain political favor in the world.  I am sorry for my actions, I acted poorly. We all have acted poorly, and we all should be ashamed.

My prayers go out to those harmed in the shooting.

Advertisements
29 comments
  1. Don’t go all jelly legs on us. It’s war! Whenever the liberal beast comes out using carnage and mayhem as an excuse to score political points they have to be punched in the rhetorical nose. Sitting back, being all self-righteous never has worked.

  2. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – When we lose ourselfs. when we lose our morals, we become no better then they are. There will be a time for poltical discussion, there will be a time for fighting. But that time is not now. Now is the time to gather information, to help those who have been hurt and remember how fragile life really is. A child is dead, and judge is dead, their bodies are not even cold and we are using them to pit ourselves against one another.  We are flailing in the fog of war, no gains can be made here. All we can do is make assholes out of our selves.

  3. @obamawatch – There is nothing immoral about standing up to liberals in ALL situations. When they use disasters as propaganda against us it is extremely effective.  Why do you think liberals have been so successful for the last 100 years?

  4. And they can always count on decent people like you to begin the self loathing guilt trip that anchors their propaganda into hearts and minds.

  5. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – PROGRESSIVES, have done so well of the last 100 years because we have allowed them to paint us as monsters, we then try to play their game. We sink to there level and offer no moral stance against them.  I am calling out progressives and conservatives, this end fighting over every little issue is taring our country apart.  The fog of war blinds us.  WE MUST learn all the details before we begin the debate.  Calm and level heads will always prevail. I will not use the greif that has striken a state to improve my political standing, when I do not yet know all the details. I am ashamed of acting when i did. I acted blindly, a mistake that can lead to disaster. Do i regret standing up to progressives no, but i regret doing it when i did, with the lack of information that I had. 

  6. It’s not surprising that people end up having discussions of a political manner. She is a politician and she got shot by a loony (lefty) who I am quite sure didn’t shoot her because he was trying to rob her or didn’t like the football team she supports. It would have been a political motivation, so a political conversation is sure to follow. Though I’m not sure I agree with LoBornlytesThoughtPalace‘s comments. The thing is that there will now be an increase in security of these public servants, making them harder to reach and more detached than ever before. That’s pretty sad, but of course that will be the reaction.I think we should all stand up and cheer the fact that Jared Loughner lives in a country that celebrates the right to shoot the brains out of anyone you like, children and all. If he wasn’t so free and didn’t live in this kind of freedom loving society he might not have been able to do this and then where would we be! We’d be stuck in some socialist hellhole is where we would be! God bless his forefathers for affording him the right to bare arms.Of course, I’m sad that there weren’t more people there with guns who could have shot him down. I think a lesson here would be that we don’t need less guns like some socialist communist leftist freedom hater might suggest, but instead we need more guns in the hands of freedom lovers who could have blown him to hell before he got off a second round.Its a bad day for democrats, but a great day for freedom if you ask me.

  7. @thekingofnonomia – again, the attempts at making some kind of policial statment. and because of the profanity your comment has been removed.

  8. @obamawatch – I said “Goddam those freedom haters.” That’s not using the Lord Jesus name in vain because God loves freedom and if you don’t like the fact that God loves freedom then maybe you’re just trying to cover up the fact that you’re a freedom hater? Surely not!I didn’t use profanity though.I love the Lord just as much as any other freedom loving American. I use his name only at prayer time and I never not once use it in vain now. I’m pretty sure God isn’t afraid to damn people. It’s only the weak leftist socialist communist nudist types that can’t stand up for freedom who resort to offending the sweet name of the Lord and it matters not to me because in him their is already the great victory because his name is freedom!

  9. @obamawatch – I completely agree with you about those so-called “progressives.” Why on earth do they call them that anyway? Look what they’ve tried to do in just these recent times. Make sodomite marriage legal and promote healthcare for the poor at the expense of decent hard working freedom lovers like you and I! In what crazy world can this be called progressive! We need more guns and more walls to protect us from the onslaught of liberal ideals that are poisoning the very fabric of this proud land. We need more people like you and I who are willing to stand up and be counted. To shout NO to the gays, the leftists, the muslims, the nudists, the communists, the socialists, and the Europeans! No to their so-called “progressive” ways.I for one am pleased to stand with you on this! And you’re right, it NOT political, it’s just life and its essential!

  10. @thekingofnonomia – i do not want you to stand with me, as you don’t understand what I stand for.  You mock my beliefs and make jokes about serious issues for nothing more than kicks and giggles.

  11. @obamawatch – In fairness to me, I would say I make jokes for kicks and belly laughs really. But the odd giggle or two I can live with.Seriously though, lone gunman lunatics killing the odd child or member of congress is a small price to pay for the right to bare arms isn’t it? I mean heck, freedom is not free… is it?

  12. @thekingofnonomia –  I do not think the actions of a lunatic should take my rights to own a gun. If someone in the crowd had had a gun they could have ended this crisis. It is a tragedy, but it is not because of the right to own guns, it is because of a pyshco.  over 50% of the country owns guns and most of them didn’t kill anyone yesterday. more gun control would not solve or prevent this problem.  Everytime gun control is tightened violent crime rate goes up.  Occasionally you have someone who goes nuts, that is why we have a legal system to arrest and punish people who steal others right to life.

  13. @obamawatch – Gun control makes violent crime go up? Really? Would you mind sharing a link from a government site that show this, I’m curious to see that.The United states has always led the world in gun crime. Every few minutes someone in the United states is the victim of gun crime. Now I’m not suggesting a solution, but I always wonder why it is the America seems to suffer so much with this when other countries where citizens are gun owners don’t also suffer the same kind of problem?Perhaps the American people are simply prone to more violence than others. I wonder though, if America had no real speed limits on the road and was gripped with a real car crash problem, do you think people would want some kind of speed limit imposed?Maybe gun control isn’t the answer, maybe arming more people and making bullets free is? Heck, its surely worth a try isn’t it?Anyway, I look forward to reading the link to the government website with the increase in crime stats.

  14. Interesting thoughts.  Just watching the way people commenting on your blog seem to run off in all sorts of random directions seems to illustrate the challenges the US faces.  We can hardly have civil discourse when we can’t stay on topic.In response to your comment, there is definitely a time for everything.  In addition to offering our prayers and support for the dead and injured and their families, I hope we will also use this as an opportunity to evaluate how we can return to a more civil discussion  Name-calling and demonizing doesn’t do anything to help the country. 

  15. @thekingofnonomia – lets look at the D.C. Gun Ban. During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower, that comes from “Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Data supplied to Just Facts on June 15, 2010.the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law from Report: “Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2008/09.” Edited by Kevin Smith and John Flatley. UK Home Office, January 21, 2010Sense Chicago insituted its hand gun ban the precentages of murders committed with hand guns has gone up 40%. from:Amicus Brief No. 08-1521: McDonald v Chicago. By Maureen Martin and Nancy Lee Carlson. Heartland InstituteNow by contrast  lets look at the other end of the spectrum.Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S.  went down on 15%. from:Dataset: “Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Florida, 1960-2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Data supplied to Just Facts on June 15, 2010. Data availSince the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effectfromDataset: “Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Texas, 1960-2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services DivisionSince the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effectfrom: Dataset: “Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Michigan, 1960-2008.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. THe idea that making it criminal to own a gun, or harder to buy one legally will stop people who intend to shoot someone or steal, from getting a gun doesn’t make senes. They will get it,and then the find the rest of us unarmed and vulernable. A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends thats from Report: “Firearm Use by Offenders.” By Caroline Wolf Harlow, U.S. Department of Justice, November 2001.There are crazy people out there, who are oging to do crazy things. We cannot stop crime or murder, but taking away the easiest means to defend ourselves is not going to help.

  16. @obamawatch –  Those certainly are interesting statistics relating to a small part of the wider issue we were talking about. It didn’t really go to prove your original claim but it certainly made for challenging reading I’ll agree.I know the british have very tight gun laws so that particular stat was interesting to me. Shocking that because the Brits had their gun ownership rights so dramatically curtailed they murdered one another in vast numbers. But I suppose the real question here is did gun crime go up or down in the UK? The real question though is how did these control affect violent crime in general? It’s a tought one to really prove though isn’t it.I guess the logical solution so solve England’s apparent violence problem is to simply flood the country with firearms and ammunition, right? I mean if it helps bring down the murder rate then that must be a good idea, right?

  17. @thekingofnonomia – there is a great site for this called just the facts. they list statistics and facts about the issue, it is the most dry and boring site you can imagen. while that is boring to read when you are searching for clear info, dry and boring ususally means untainted. I do not know for the british, but I can shed some more light on the violent crime here in America.  In 2008, only 8% of voilent offenders had a gun.  Now I know there is a year gap here but in 2000, 989,883  people said they used a gun to protect their home. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry.  in the year 2005 in Chicago 95% of the murders committed where done with a handgun. But it is illegal to have a hand gun in Chicago. Guns might be used by people to commite crimes, but they are also used by people to defend themselves against crimes. As Chicago shows even though they are illegal that won’t protect you from heartless thugs who will use them to make oyu a statistic on the page.

  18. @obamawatch – I guess a law for a city is ineffective if its not a countrywide law though, so no big surprise about Chicago there. 8% of violent offenders carried weapons huh. That’s interesting. Maybe the others just had stern voices? On the whole I don’t have a problem with people owning guns. But I think there should be strict federal laws that control who has a gun, and what type of gun you should have. A delay in getting the gun to might help according to one study I read a while back.The thing is, if weaponry increases peace then I think that Iran and North Korea should not be stopped from developing nuclear weapons, and instead should be allowed to buy as many as they want. The more they have, the easier it will be for them to defend themselves and the more peaceful the world would be. But I think they should do so in a more open honest fashion without fear that an bigger more weaponized country might come along and try to find their WMD’s and confiscate them. Seriously, that idea is good. If we just said no controls on nucs and that any country could have them, then I think people would treat each other with more respect for fear of getting nucked.

  19. @thekingofnonomia – I definatly said 8% had guns. the rest used something else. The federal government cannot pass a law like you are suggesting that is the law. The federal government has no authority to control if i can and cannot have a gun, or what kind i have, or even where i carry it.  People are calling for more gun control because of this crime. But lets think of how rare it actually is, the last time a United States Representative was killed was in 85 by jim jones.  This doesn’t happen all that often. Violent thugs will get guns if they wnat them. Then the people who are law abiding citizens have nothing to defend themselves with.  When a criminal goes to commite a crime most of them do not go to a store a buy it. They steal it or buy it from some back street dealer.  Laws only affect those who choose to fallow them.  It is already illegal to shot a representative, but that didn’t stop the shooter.  More laws is not the answer. You cannot stop everything, you cannot be completely safe.  Sometimes people fall through the cracks. That will always happen, and I do not want to give up my rights for something that continueally has been shown not to work. Your reference to Iran there actually illustrates my point very well thank you.  The United Nations said Iran no nukes. Iran made nukes anyways.  The international community said no, yet they built them anyways.  There where sanctions levied against them, yet they built them anyways.  When people go rouge they don’t listen to the law.  Iran, the pyscho tuscon shooter, they don’t care about law they will find a way to complete there task one way or another. 

  20. @obamawatch – All your stats talked about murders with guns. My point was that this is a tiny part of the wider discussion we were having. To quote those stats, while interesting, didn’t really prove that much. But I appreciate you doing so.The thing is, while I like guns and shooting them, its an inescapable truth that America is gripped by violent gun crime in a way unparalleled by other similar countries.To argue that you shouldn’t make laws because ‘bad guys don’t follow them’ is ludicrous! I think the point of laws is to benefit society and keep the peace, but it is also to enable the state to punish those who do not keep the peace. If you believe that there is no point in creating laws that the baddies won’t honor anyway, then might I suggest to you that we should do away with the sexual age of consent because pedophiles don’t care about such laws. Put like that, I am sure you can see the flaw in that argument.If we are to believe that restricting gun ownership increases the general level of danger and violence, then this surely must follow a line that includes all weapons. So my point is that Iran and any other state must be allowed to have as many weapons as they wish, or whatever magnitude they feel is required. If weapon ownership makes other people more weary of doing something they shouldn’t, then I can’t see the problem with allowing Iran to have nukes.Personally, I don’t give a stuff that a congresswoman was shot. I care that another innocent person was gunned down by a mad person who was able to buy a deadly weapon without any kind of checks at all. The result of this now is that members of congress will now increase their own security because of some misguided belief in an increased threat, and in doing so they will make themselves that much less in touch with the common man as they become cocooned in the warmth of a security blanket and wealthy world of professional politics.

  21. @thekingofnonomia – again, I stated only 8% of violent offenders used guns.  THere is a law against killing people, why do we need to make a law that will take away our ability to protect ourselves?  The criminals can get the gun, even if it is illegal. Its illegal to smoke pot, meth, crack, yet people still get there hands on them.   At the end of the day the government cannot make a law limiting gun ownership. THey do not have the authority. It is against the law for them to do so.

  22. @obamawatch – And again while your government are limited in a way about what they can do to limit access to weaponry, such a law would not be hard to alter if there was the political will. But in the United States there is a belief that in order to defend ones self one needs a deadly weapon.To argue that you shouldn’t make laws because ‘bad guys don’t follow them’ is ludicrous! I think the point of laws is to benefit society and keep the peace, but it is also to enable the state to punish those who do not keep the peace. If you believe that there is no point in creating laws that the baddies won’t honor anyway, then might I suggest to you that we should do away with the age of consent for sex because pedophiles don’t care about such laws. Put like that, I am sure you can see the flaw in that argument.If we are to believe that restricting gun ownership increases the general level of danger and violence, then this surely must follow a line that includes all weapons. So my point is that Iran and any other states must be allowed to have as many weapons as they wish, or whatever magnitude they feel is required. If weapon ownership makes other people more weary of doing something they shouldn’t or that is not within the bounds of what that country is happy with, then I assume you have no issue with them having the arms by which to defend themselves.America remain a country gripped by an astonishing addiction to gun related violence and a seemingly illogical resistance to want to impose any amount of sensible control on who has a gun. It’s a position that is in total contrast to the way America swaggers around saying that Iran and other countries can’t have weapons because they can’t be trusted. If weapons = peace, then that philosophy counts right across the board surely?

  23. Quite useful info, thanks for this article. 1 5 LINK. The dude is completely just, and there is no skepticism. web 0 9. This cannot have effect in actual fact, that is what I think. site link 8. I saw a great deal of helpful information above!

  24. Harold said:

    Goodness, there is a great deal of effective info above! 8 go 1. This can’t work as a matter of fact, that is exactly what I believe. 7 here 0. It won’t truly have success, I consider this way. here 1 go. Thanks so much for your article, very helpful info.

Let the discussion begin

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: