Jared Lee Loughner was a registered INDEPENDENT

[lakhota]

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza reports:

Suspected Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner registered as an independent voter in Arizona in the fall of 2006, according to the Pima County Registrar of Voters.

Loughner registered to vote on Sept. 29, 2006, identifying himself as an independent. Records show he voted in the 2006 and 2008 elections but is current listed as "inactive" on the state's voter roles -- meaning that he did not vote in November.

The political affiliations of Loughner, who is being charged by state and federal authorities with the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) as well as 19 other victims outside a Tucson grocery store on Saturday, have become the subject of a white-hot partisan debate in recent days.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, liberals sought to paint Loughner as an anti-government, tea party conservative. Conservatives retorted that Loughner lacked anything close to a coherent political philosophy -- a case strengthened by subsequent glimpses into his personal life that suggests someone struggling with mental illness.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10....n-2010-election

Washington Post: ht.ly/3Btvv

[Politically_Incorrect12]

It doesn't matter what he was registered.

[Deleted]

He should have been registered with the psychopathic nutjob party.

[floridayankee]

Jan 11, 2011 7:06:13 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

It doesn't matter what he was registered.

The repubs don't listen to the point and blame alinsky tactics from the progressives any more so now I guess they're targeting the independents.

Careful moderate dems....you're next on the radar after they realize us Indy's don't give a hoot either.

[Deleted]

I think anti-government would be the closest classification... next to psychopathic nutjob, obviously...

[fairlycrazy23]

I'm surprised he was registered at all.

[billisonboard]

I read that he had not voted in the recent past and his registration had gone to "inactive" status.

[chiver78]

Jan 11, 2011 12:46:45 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I'm surprised he was registered at all.

I thought I heard that he fixated on Giffords because he had gone to another event like Saturday's a couple years back, and found her answer to some question he asked as "lacking". I know that doesn't absolutely mean he's involved in the political process, but I would think if he's interested enough to ask a question, he's probably at least registered to vote in case something is so pressing he needs to cast one.

[rockon]

I'm pretty sure there are nut "jobs" of all types, genders, affiliations, races but his actions do not reflect on all white, male independents so I'm really confused on why everyone seems fixated on pinning the blame on some certain segment of our population. Step back and look at the larger picture and try to understand why so many people in this country are dissatisfied with the direction our country is going and the corruption and lying that is part of today"s political circle and it should come as no surprise that the luneys on the fringes could resort to violent behaviors. Lets all ask our government officials to be accountable to the people again and ask them to simply follow our constitution and maybe some of the angry rhetoric will subside.

[floridayankee]

Jan 11, 2011 13:24:30 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I thought I heard that he fixated on Giffords because he had gone to another event like Saturday's a couple years back, and found her answer to some question he asked as "lacking".

You are correct. He attended a similar event in 2007 and had mentioned friend that he found her "stupid".

Also apparently, on youtube, he said “Nearly all the people, who don’t know this accurate information of a new currency, aren’t aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn’t have happen[ed]." Apparently he didn't comprehend "civil rights" because his message happend because of them.

This guy was a train wreck just looking for a place to happen. No amount of political postering, opressive laws or civil dialogue would have prevented it.

[Deleted]

Jan 11, 2011 7:06:13 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

It doesn't matter what he was registered.

Agreed. It seems in this day and age people like to slap labels on everything. Especially when that persons view does not side with the majority. No matter what political party he belonged to it would not change the fact that he injured and killed so many innocent people. I guess there is a looney toon in every bunch.

[lakhota]

Actually, it does matter, since some on the right try to portray him as Democrat.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 11, 2011 23:19:28 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

Actually, it does matter, since some on the right try to portray him as Democrat.

Who cares, they are wrong for doing it too. His political affiliation doesn't matter, his action do matter. How bizzare is it that this man killed several people, although you might miss it with all the focus being on one of his targets, and there is all this talk about which political party he affiliates with...

[formerexpat]

Actually, it does matter, since some on the right try to portray him as Democrat.

[/size]

He is. Pretty liberal at that. He was very dissatisfied with the moderate blue dog Democrat in his district and had apparently had an eye on her as far back as 2007.

He thought she should be reading the Communist Manifesto & Mein Kampf and burning flags with him.

Probably a regular over at Huffington and Daily Kos.

[chiver78]

Jan 11, 2011 23:33:32 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Actually, it does matter, since some on the right try to portray him as Democrat.

[/size]

He is. Pretty liberal at that. He was very dissatisfied with the moderate blue dog Democrat in his district and had apparently had an eye on her as far back as 2007.

He thought she should be reading the Communist Manifesto & Mein Kampf and burning flags with him.

Probably a regular over at Huffington and Daily Kos.[/quote]

and yet politics don't overshadow the fact that he's a nut who thought violence was an acceptable path to ensuring (he hoped) that his views would be heard and followed. that alone is frightening, considering that the incendiary rhetoric that has been commonplace the past few years has only continued since this past weekend's shootings.

could we move away from whatever party or views this guy espoused, and concentrate on the fact that we are accepting a government that is moving toward more and more polarizing content, at least as far as public correspondence is concerned? we should all want to move toward intelligent and respectful conversation, as far as differences of opinion. nobody has a right to wipe you out simply because you don't agree with them, but that's the direction I see this country heading.

[Deleted]

Jan 11, 2011 23:23:32 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 11, 2011 23:19:28 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

Actually, it does matter, since some on the right try to portray him as Democrat.

Who cares, they are wrong for doing it too. His political affiliation doesn't matter, his action do matter. How bizzare is it that this man killed several people, although you might miss it with all the focus being on one of his targets, and there is all this talk about which political party he affiliates with...

My thoughts exactly. First and foremost he is a human being. That should come before anything else. Its terrifying that people like this are walking around ready to do God only knows what. It is a bit strange though how the media has focused so much on one person. Just because a person is a public figure or government official does that make the rest of society any less important?

[billisonboard]

He thought she should be reading the Communist Manifesto & Mein Kampf...

And don't forget The Phantom Tollbooth also. #rolleyes2#

[chiver78]

Jan 11, 2011 23:45:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

And don't forget The Phantom Tollbooth also.

ooh....now there's a childhood memory - Milo and his adventures. the one that sticks out to me is the boy he met that was "growing down" rather than "growing up". I may have to go find this and re-read while I'm snowed in tomorrow.

[formerexpat]

and yet politics don't overshadow the fact that he's a nut who thought violence was an acceptable path to ensuring (he hoped) that his views would be heard and followed. that alone is frightening, considering that the incendiary rhetoric that has been commonplace the past few years has only continued since this past weekend's shootings.

[/size]

Why are you still missing the point that this had absolutely nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with the rhetoric used by either party going back several years?

This kind of deranged person is not influenced by the political rhetoric.

Eliminating all rhetoric will not stop this from occurring again in the future if there is a person that is not of sound mental health. After all, it was the love of Jodie Foster that led Hinckley to attempt to assassinate Reagan.

What is apparent is that one party made an attempt to immediately tie this guy to two of the largest targets of theirs, Palin and the Tea Party, for political gain without doing any research or having an ounce of support to back up the claim except for what can only be considered a fabricated or grossly inaccurate report from the DHS trying to tie this guy to a conservative racist group. That's just repulsive to use a tragedy like this for political gain.

[Deleted]

Jan 12, 2011 0:03:18 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

and yet politics don't overshadow the fact that he's a nut who thought violence was an acceptable path to ensuring (he hoped) that his views would be heard and followed. that alone is frightening, considering that the incendiary rhetoric that has been commonplace the past few years has only continued since this past weekend's shootings.

[/size]

Why are you still missing the point that this had absolutely nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with the rhetoric used by either party going back several years?

This kind of deranged person is not influenced by the political rhetoric.

Eliminating all rhetoric will not stop this from occurring again in the future if there is a person that is not of sound mental health. After all, it was the love of Jodie Foster that led Hinckley to attempt to assassinate Reagan.

What is apparent is that one party made an attempt to immediately tie this guy to two of the largest targets of theirs, Palin and the Tea Party, for political gain without doing any research or having an ounce of support to back up the claim except for what can only be considered a fabricated or grossly inaccurate report from the DHS trying to tie this guy to a conservative racist group. That's just repulsive to use a tragedy like this for political gain.[/quote]

exactly! karma coming you way.

[SweetVirginia]

Jan 11, 2011 23:33:32 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

Actually, it does matter, since some on the right try to portray him as Democrat.

[/size]

He is. Pretty liberal at that. He was very dissatisfied with the moderate blue dog Democrat in his district and had apparently had an eye on her as far back as 2007.

He thought she should be reading the Communist Manifesto & Mein Kampf and burning flags with him.

Probably a regular over at Huffington and Daily Kos.[/quote]

Could you add a link that shows that Loughner was dissatisfied with Gifford specifically because she was a blue dog moderate? That would be great, thanks.

[chiver78]

"What is apparent is that one party made an attempt to immediately tie this guy to two of the largest targets of theirs, Palin and the Tea Party, for political gain without doing any research or having an ounce of support to back up the claim except for what can only be considered a fabricated or grossly inaccurate report from the DHS trying to tie this guy to a conservative racist group. That's just repulsive to use a tragedy like this for political gain."

and what you're not acknowledging is that the other side is doing exactly the same thing. if everyone takes a step backwards and starts to think about the content of their arguments, rather than the letter behind the name of the person arguing an opposing opinion, we might actually get somewhere.

as far as the mental health point, mental illness is never an excuse for violence. nothing is an excuse for violence. lots of things went wrong in this guy's life....but for someone as influential as all the articles I've read have led me to believe, all the polarizing crap that's been out there for the past few years couldn't have helped.

do you mean to say that just because all that crap wasn't the deciding factor in getting this guy to a) go buy a gun, b) pick a Congressional target, and c) pick an event to open fire, that it's OK to keep moving down this path? whatever happened to agreeing to disagree, and being civil in that disagreement? whatever happened to engaging in intelligent discussions of differences of opinions, and working to ensure that you improve the country? I personally don't feel as though working to ensure that the country gets more polarized will make me feel safer to offer up my opinion in public, on the off chance that some nut won't agree with me and blow my head off.

[formerexpat]

Could you add a link that shows that Loughner was dissatisfied with Gifford specifically because she was a blue dog moderate? That would be great, thanks.

[/size]

I'm sorry, I didn't think substantiation of statements was required on these boards or by journalists today. It certainly hasn't occurred the past few days in the many gross misrepresentations that have been made about Loughner being tied to Palin and the Tea Party.

Maybe I'm connecting dots to the fact that Loughner has a letter from Giffords from 2007, and his former friends saying he was very liberal.

I assumed he was a Daily Kos fan: www.examiner.com/post-partisan-in-national/is-liberal-website-responsible-for-giffords-shooting-photo

They targeted her with a bullseye in 2008. Perhaps that was his motive?

Or, maybe I was assuming his liberal beliefs would have lead him to be similar to this poster who was angry with Giffords voting against Pelosi: twitpic.com/3o7s5c

But assumptions and gross misrepresentations aren't bad, are they? I mean, I've seen major journalists rush to judgment and tell us that this guy is affiliated with the tea party and Palin. Similar to the connections they tried to make shortly after the NYC Times Square bombing.

Of course, they did at least tell us to refrain from judgment in the Ft Hood killings despite the evidence suggesting he was a Muslim extremist.

I guess withholding judgment is only applicable when it fits your political motives.

[formerexpat]

and what you're not acknowledging is that the other side is doing exactly the same thing. if everyone takes a step backwards and starts to think about the content of their arguments, rather than the letter behind the name of the person arguing an opposing opinion, we might actually get somewhere.

[/size]

You mean to show the contradictions and true intent of a political party to take advantage of such a tragedy? Not the same thing but thanks for playing.

Don't pretend to care about divisive politics now.

that it's OK to keep moving down this path? whatever happened to agreeing to disagree, and being civil in that disagreement? whatever happened to engaging in intelligent discussions of differences of opinions, and working to ensure that you improve the country? I personally don't feel as though working to ensure that the country gets more polarized will make me feel safer to offer up my opinion in public, on the off chance that some nut won't agree with me and blow my head off

[/size]

What I see is a government that is more intent now than it has been in the past 60 years to squash the thoughts and ideas of its citizens if it is in disagreement with the administration.

What you've stated never existed. We could be not so far away from the 2nd coming of McCarthyism if we're not vigilant about keeping our freedoms, including freedom of speech and I would also say the right to bear arms.

I'm more concerned about keeping the government out of my life and their reckless spending than the political rhetoric in this country.

[lakhota]

What I see is a government that is more intent now than it has been in the past 60 years to squash the thoughts and ideas of its citizens if it is in disagreement with the administration.

Gee, you lived through a lot in your "30" years...

[billisonboard]

What I see is a government that is more intent now than it has been in the past 60 years to squash the thoughts and ideas of its citizens if it is in disagreement with the administration.

Nixon.

[SweetVirginia]

I guess withholding judgment is only applicable when it fits your political motives.

You would know.

[formerexpat]

Gee, you lived through a lot in your "30" years...

[/size]

Guess you can't read or learn anything about history...

Nixon.

[/size]

Maybe, but I think it **could** be worse. True, they aren't to the Nixonian territory right now though.

[formerexpat]

You would know.

[/size]

I'm afraid I've done much more research on the topic than the major "journalists" of this country.

Even still, I've been on record as saying this man is deeply disturbed and this had nothing to do with politics but if someone wants to try to bring politics into it, then it's clear that he was a deeply disturbed [as if there is any other kind] liberal. #tongue#

And of course I'm going to counter stupid references to the use of divisive politics with examples of the same thing that has gone on from the opposite side for the past several years, without concern from my liberal friends until now.

The media hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me, nor do the people that eat the shit up.

[lakhota]

Well, maybe gun sales will revive the economy...

GUN CONTROL SELLS GUNS: An In-Depth Look At America's Thriving Industry

Trace the long history of guns in American life and one truism remains constant: The firearms industry always manages to sell large volumes of product.

This has been so in flush times and during recession; through periods of crime and relative public safety; in war and in peacetime. It has held in the wake of horrific acts of conspicuous violence and the public hand-wringing they provoke. Such is the business reality that has made handguns permanently abundant on the streets of American communities, an issue once again at the forefront following the shooting rampage in Tucson last weekend.

Legal, retail sales of new guns have averaged about $3.5 billion a year in inflation-adjusted terms going back to the mid-1990s, said Andy Molchan, director of the Professional Gun Retailers Association, an industry trade group.

"The gun industry really hasn't changed very much in about forty years," Molchan said. "It's been extremely steady."

The tragedy in Arizona has reinvigorated demands for beefed-up gun control laws. Yet most experts expect firearm sales to continue, and even accelerate, as gun owners who fear new restrictions rush out to add to their arsenals before any rules can take effect. Time and again, the powerful industry lobby--led by the National Rifle Association--has proven adept at mobilizing to fend off new controls, maintaining a lucrative status quo.

New guns sold legally in the United States reached an all-time high of nearly 9 million in 2009, the last year for which full data exists, according to William J. Vizzard, professor of criminal justice at California State University, Sacramento, who crafts estimates by analyzing federal data. That number does not include millions of used guns sold at gun shows or new models exchanged among unlicensed dealers.

Nothing fuels gun sales like uncertainty about the future--particularly when such uncertainty centers on the availability of handguns. The last pronounced surge in sales came in the wake of 2008's financial crisis of 2008 and into 2009, as President Obama took office. Those two events formed a powerful combination, spreading financial anxiety just as the airwaves filled with talk of dark conspiracies that the new president planned the seize weapons.

"People were rushing out to buy guns, because they were worried [Obama] was going to take their guns away," Vizzard said. "He didn't have a single proposal on the table for gun laws. It defies reason. It's a culture unto itself."

Though many industries cratered after the financial crisis, the gun industry was not one of them. Smith and Wesson, one the nation's largest distributors of firearms, saw sales increase by 25 percent over the last three months of 2008 compared to the same period a year earlier.

Smith and Wesson explained the surge in sales by pointing to political factors, including "a new administration taking office in Washington, D.C., speculation surrounding increased gun control and heightened fears of terrorism and crime," according to the company's annual earnings report.

Other firearms brands saw a similar spike in sales.

"When the election process took place, people were fearful they were going to lose access to tactical firearms with high capacity magazines, as has been the case in the past when Democrats took office," said Blake Mecham, national accounts manager for Browning and its subsidiary, Winchester.

The same sort of dynamic played out on a smaller scale in 1994, after President Clinton signed a ban on assault rifles into law.

The carnage in Tucson appears to have delivered yet another promising market for the firearms industry. Just two days after an Arizona shooter killed six people and wounded 14 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), sales for Glock 19s -- the $599 semi-automatic pistol Loughner allegedly used -- shot up, according to reporting by Bloomberg.

"We're at double our volume over what we usually do," the owner of two Arizona gun shops told Bloomberg.

Unlike many industries in which a handful of major players dominate, the firearms trade has traditionally been fragmented, with niche players capturing significant slices of the market, though consolidation has been a force in recent years.

"If you put the whole industry together, you still wouldn't have one Fortune 500 company," said David Kopel, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Experts say the structure of the industry owes to the fact the gun-owners rarely feel the need to replace their weapons, with new purchases motivated by a desire to simply own more or to collect for novelty purposes.

Much like hammers and crowbars, guns remain capable of fulfilling their basic function for a very long time. Unlike computers or cars, their technology doesn't change rapidly enough to prompt constant consumer upgrades.

The vast majority of new gun sales each year involve a few large customers such as police forces. In 2009, only six customers made up 69 percent of the sales for major handgun producer Sturm, Ruger and Smith.

But sales of firearms have proven steady and notably impervious to the fluctuations of the business cycle that shape other industries.

"Economics is a secondary factor," said Molchan, the retailers association director. "For the last half century, when gun sales have gone down, it usually means people are less apprehensive about firearms restrictions and laws. Anxiety is always a factor in gun sales."

Under federal law, every gun purchased from a licensed dealer requires an FBI background check. In 2009, 14 million background checks were performed, a jump from 12 million in 2008.

Even if new gun laws are now passed in the wake of the latest high-profile tragedy, the gun industry is unlikely to see a slowdown in its business.

"Gun control sells guns," said Kopel, the Cato analyst. "If people worry that their ability to buy guns will be restricted or taken away, it typically leads them to buy firearms when they can."

Current rhetoric aside, fresh gun control regulations are no sure thing. Many Americans value individual gun ownership as a core civil liberty, a position that has gained great political currency in recent decades--particularly in southern and western states.

Given the enduring influence of the gun lobby in Washington and in state legislatures, championing gun restrictions is politically risky, a reliable way for an incumbent to find themselves facing a well-financed challenger.

During the election cycle following the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School--a grisly spectacle that brought sustained calls for gun control--the NRA's political action committee more than doubled its campaign spending relative to the previous election, shelling out a total of $16.8 million, according to OpenSecrets.org.

During the 2004 election cycle, when the Clinton assault weapon ban law was set to expire, the political action committee spent $12.8 million, 17 percent more than in the previous cycle.

After the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, the same PAC expended $15.6 million, an increase of nearly 40 percent over to the previous cycle.

Experts say the NRA has proven skillful at portraying individual gun ownership as an almost sacred piece of American freedom, casting proposed restrictions as the bleeding edge of totalitarianism. The NRA did not return calls seeking comment.

"The NRA depends on scared members," said Vizzard. "You have to have people constantly in a state of fear and agitation or they might not send in their membership fees this year. They've got a lot invested in people being afraid."

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/post_629_n_807360.html