Skip to main content

View Diary: Gabby Giffords' hearing today interrupted with news of mass shooting in Phoenix (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Enough! (38+ / 0-)

    I was duly slammed commenting on another post a few days ago for saying I wanted all of the guns banned.  I want the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Today, my former law partner is in a Phoenix hospital in ICU after this nonsense in Phoenix.  I maintain my position.  It is time to change the culture in this country.  we can't all be this terrified of each other.

    •  It seems, even with the catalyst of Sandy Hook, (6+ / 0-)

      our legislators don't have the balls to do it. Everyone seemed okay with the President's suggestions. Then they said they didn't think they could pass an assault weapons ban. Then they said they thought they could only pass background checks. And now even that is iffy. But they haven't done anything to change the gun laws in the Capitol. Nor should they. Just kinda interesting.

    •  Except for racist sheriff Joe Arapio right? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PSzymeczek

      I mean, after you've repealed then 2nd Amendment, and only Sheriff Joe and his "posse" have guns, are you really going to feel that much safer?

      Because you really don't want ALL the guns banned.  You're not going to touch the police are you?

      •  The police can keep their guns (7+ / 0-)

        Arpaio is accountable to the law and the Constitution.  We have a political process to deal with him.  I don't need a weapon to protect myself, I just need to organize voters and get him out democratically.  

        •  We are ALL accountable to the law and Const. (0+ / 0-)

          What are you talking about?  Citizens are all accountable to the laws and to the Constitutions.  If any citizen breaks the law by committing murder, as in this event here, they are arrested and tried.

          You say that Arpaio is not above the law, and that is true.  So if he or a member of his posse were to shoot an innocent unarmed person, he or the posse member will go to jail.  If you accept that outcome for the police, why do you reject it for everyone else?

          Because I thougth the issue is random gun violence and people going crazy then shooting people.  The police are not immune to those issues and behaviors.  Cops go bad and shoot people.  And family members of police can get their hands on guns.

          If you think the risk of random gun violence is so hight that you must get rid of all the guns, then get rid of ALL the guns.  Don't leave a subset of people who are still armed and still a danger to everyone else.  Because Arpaio doesn't look mentally stable to me.  If you trust him not to snap, what gives you the right to judge everyone else?

      •  You did read (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skookum, Leap Year, Laconic Lib

        what he or she just wrote, didn't you? That the person shot in Phoenix was her friend? And still you had to poke, poke, poke, didn't you? Does your paranoia prevent you from having any civility?

        An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

        by Debby on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:02:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Speedy recovery to your partner! (6+ / 0-)

      Which is, I think, the only thing to be said as a reply.

    •  The argument (0+ / 0-)

      Without getting into the merits of your view of the 2nd amendment, the position you take is a minority position and is the type of thing gun nuts point to to justify their claims that "we" want to grab all guns. Most of us don't; most of us think shotguns or deer rifles are okay for hunting. But they'll cite you, scream "SEE! LIBERALS!!" at the top of their lungs and raise lots of cash for Wayne LaPierre and his useful idiots on Capitol Hill.

      Good luck to you on this difficult day; best wishes for your colleague in the hospital.

      The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

      by Korkenzieher on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:52:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would just point out that getting rid... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZenTrainer, Debby, gramofsam1, shaharazade

        of the Second Amendment doesn't necessarily mean all guns would be banned. After all, there is no Second Amendment in Canada and plenty of folks there have guns. However, absent the Second, regulation of firearms would possible.

        Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

        by Ian S on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:03:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We could have regulation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Korkenzieher

          with the Second as well if we had politicians with guts.

          An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

          by Debby on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:04:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Regulation (0+ / 0-)

          The first words of the 2nd amendment are "A well regulated". Gun nuts want us to forget that, but we mustn't. We can have sane laws without repealing any part of the constitution.

          The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

          by Korkenzieher on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:33:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Except that in Canada (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade

          there are very few licenses granted for handguns ( around 300 in all of Canada not counting armoured car guards and similar positions) assault weapons are banned along with high capacity magazines.  Most people don't have guns and the majority of those that do own long guns for hunting.  It's true, we don't have anything like the 2nd Amendment and don't want one.

          •  A Canadian 2nd amendment (0+ / 0-)

            If Canada had the 2nd amendment, you could still have the same, utterly reasonable regulations that your federal and provincial governments have in place now. I believe our 2nd amendment is meant to allow for the regulation of firearms, up to and including what our northern neighbors have. The problem isn't the amendment. The problem is the idiots here in the US who chose to interpret it so as to allow civilian lunatics to be better armed than the average infantryman in Afghanistan.

            The Bush Family: 0 for 4 in Wisconsin

            by Korkenzieher on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 02:10:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site