Limbaugh: Loughner Has 'Full Support' Of Dem Party

[deziloooooo]

Jan 14, 2011 14:18:00 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I used to watch & listen to Rush. Every now & then he did have some valid points that I totally agreed with. Many times though his points were so far out there that he looked like a total nut job. Then there were the times when he took his valid points & pushed them to the extreme & that also made him look like a total nut job. I stopped watching him because as I got older I found that I have a much harder job digesting "nuts" than I used to. I also gave up jalapenos.

Long time ago I was on the road and listened to talk radio and he was the only one on..I would be driving , and as I was listening , he would get me all worked up, in disagreement, that I would pound on the dash, and even yell back at him. So help me, a cop pulled me over, not speeding but a little swerve in my lane...thought I might be drinking plus noticed me yelling and pounding... after I told him my story, still pissed and thinking now I was going to get a ticket..he laughed so hard I thought he was going to piss his pants. let me go , no warning , just to cool it and said he couldn't wait to tell his buddies on his next break when they would meet some coffee joint.
That was it for me and Rush..so help me..I lived in Galveston at the time happened on Hwy #45 that ran to Houston..

[Loopdilou]

Jan 11, 2011 18:21:22 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

20 Deadliest Gun States

You're five times more likely to die from a gun in Arizona than Hawaii. In the wake of the Giffords massacre, The Daily Beast ranks which states have the worst record of gun fatalities.

Galleries: www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2504/1/

www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona/?cid=hp:mainpromo5

This is seriously fascinating... I need to go look up those stats and see how accurate they are. Considering how bad a rap that California gets for gang problems and immigrants, etc.. you'd think someone would actually have FACTS to back up that impression Looks to be quite the opposite.

Granted, one also has to take into account violent crime in general and injuries involving guns as well. Still... very interesting!

[lakhota]

Loopdilou, you have a lovely avatar...

[handyman2]

FBI stats-two thirds of all gun deaths are criminals killing other criminals in drug or gang wars.
BATF-90% of all violent crimes do not involve a gun of any kind.

[robinking]

The following is one of the better Pro-Gun arguments I've read.
"The Gun Is Civilization!" Interesting take and one you probably never heard before. . . . . .

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago , IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Thank You

[Loopdilou]

That is one of the most bullsh*t arguments I have ever heard. I don't fear force and am only ever presented with reason. People who carry guns are either law enforcement or paranoid delusional. The 2nd amendment calls for a well regulated militia.. not random shmucks.

[robinking]

Jan 11, 2011 20:02:00 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

How An Armed Hero Nearly Shot The Wrong Person

William Saletan at Slate offers up a cautionary tale about allowing more people to carry guns, and how gun-carrying citizens -- who may have the best intentions -- could make such situations worse.

He notes that many gun rights advocates are pointing to Joe Zamudio, who was in a nearby pharmacy -- armed -- when the shooting began. He rushed over and helped subdue the killer:

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

Zamudio has no professional or military training with weapons. He also, according to the Arizona Daily Star, didn't initially pull out his own weapon because he was afraid of being confused as a second gunman.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/jared-loughner-family-statement_n_807703.html#203_how-an-armed-hero-nearly-shot-the-wrong-person


NOTE: I saw this young man in a live interview. He seemed like a good guy; someone I'd be proud to know. However, he did come dangerously close to shooting the wrong person, and if he had - his normal life would have ended abruptly. I believe that is a critical ingredient that is ignored by many who are carrying weapons openly or concealed. The dangers of mistakes and liability are enormous.

Any intelligent CCW holder with morals would first order a gunman to drop their weapon... unless that gunman was firing. If this were the case, then the CCW holder should kill the shooter. If I were to hear shots, I'd never let it be known I carry a weapon. I'd pull it if necessary, so I didn't end up a victim of mistaken identity. The fact that this guy "could have" made a mistake, is not an argument against concealed carry laws. If a person with a CCW had hate and anger in their heart and was looking for the opportunity to kill... then they'd use any justification to use their weapon. Then they'd become the perp.

[robinking]

Jan 15, 2011 14:39:21 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

That is one of the most bullsh*t arguments I have ever heard. I don't fear force and am only ever presented with reason. People who carry guns are either law enforcement or paranoid delusional. The 2nd amendment calls for a well regulated militia.. not random shmucks.

This is your opinion. But, being a female, you'd quickly change that opinion if you were surrounded by 3 men in a dark alley looking to rape you.

[robinking]

P.S.

Don't be a "smuck" lol when quoting the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Loopdilou]

Jan 15, 2011 14:49:09 GMT -5 robinking said:

Jan 15, 2011 14:39:21 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

That is one of the most bullsh*t arguments I have ever heard. I don't fear force and am only ever presented with reason. People who carry guns are either law enforcement or paranoid delusional. The 2nd amendment calls for a well regulated militia.. not random shmucks.

This is your opinion. But, being a female, you'd quickly change that opinion if you were surrounded by 3 men in a dark alley looking to rape you.

Only weak minded individuals change their opinions when threatened with force.

Some of us use our brains and don't walk down dark alleys

[robinking]

Then accept what happens and you can only blame yourself (for being defenseless) and the perps (for being without morals).

[Loopdilou]

Jan 15, 2011 14:51:27 GMT -5 robinking said:

P.S.

Don't be a "smuck" lol when quoting the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Based on the placing of the comma, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is dependant on the clause "a well regulated militia", otherwise there would be an "and" in there. Most people don't speak English in America so I understand your confused interpretation.

[robinking]

Do you have bars over your windows? Have you ever walked to your car alone? To assume you're always safe is to allow yourself to become the victim. I know a lot of females who carry and feel this has leveled the playing field. You'd take that right away from them?

[Loopdilou]

Jan 15, 2011 15:01:44 GMT -5 robinking said:

Then accept what happens and you can only blame yourself (for being defenseless) and the perps (for being without morals).

Typical chauvinist. It will be the defenseless woman's fault... or it's the perps fault (and the stupid woman's, but that is subordinate in blame to the rapists )

[Loopdilou]

Jan 15, 2011 15:03:56 GMT -5 robinking said:

Do you have bars over your windows? Have you ever walked to your car alone? To assume you're always safe is to allow yourself to become the victim. I know a lot of females who carry and feel this has leveled the playing field. You'd take that right away from them?

I never assume safety. Which is why I make intelligent decisions about how I act, dress, and where (and when) I go. Assuming a gun makes you safe is the height of stupidity. It is not a good replacement for wits. I'd take away their right if they were carrying assault weapons,didn't have mandated training, had mental health issues, or were too dumb to figure out that walking in dark alleys is a bad idea.

[robinking]

My interpretation is pretty clear to most. This is one of the more easily understood Amendment. To try and lawyer it up is what has caused the decline in the country. People look at laws and try to discern the writers intent and totally miss their INTENT. This Amendment says that We have the right to own weapons... PERIOD. But, I do agree with other posters that this doesn't mean they need to be in everyone's hands. I don't advocate guns, guns guns... and then more guns. Too many guns mean some idiot leaves his out so a child can mistake it for a toy. But, does one person's stupidity mean the weak are left powerless in that dark alley that some have no choice but to travel?

[robinking]

Jan 15, 2011 15:05:52 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

Jan 15, 2011 15:01:44 GMT -5 robinking said:

Then accept what happens and you can only blame yourself (for being defenseless) and the perps (for being without morals).

Typical chauvinist. It will be the defenseless woman's fault... or it's the perps fault (and the stupid woman's, but that is subordinate in blame to the rapists )

Attack me if you must, but my argument can't be broken. No; a woman who is attacked is not at fault... unless she goes into the situation knowing there is a chance for harm and doesn't take adequate precautions to protect herself.

Example:

Ice fishing is dangerous. If a man goes on the ice without properly surveying the thickness, he's stupid. If he falls under, we pay for his stupidity via a Coast Guard rescue and medical costs. Is he a victim? Yes, but this doesn't negate his own responsibility. Similarly, a woman who walks into a bad part of town with no prethought of defending herself is partly to blame for being stupid. She is a victim and the perp. deserves castration, but she should have used common sense.

[Loopdilou]

If you have no choice to travel in a dark alley, you either need a new job or to learn how to approach your city council to get lights installed.

As for interpreting INTENT... the Founding Fathers were better educated in the written word than any modern American save professors of English. Their intent is pretty clear to anyone who knows even a modicum of grammar or punctuation.

[Loopdilou]

All I'm saying is a gun is no guarantee of freedom, so those lady friends of yours are idiots if they're subbing a gun for common sense and critical thinking. I'd prefer a knife vs 3 rapists so I can cut off their balls anyway. Mace and stun guns are also alternatives that don't require ASSAULT weapons on our streets. I do not argue the right to bear arms, I argue against the unrelegated right and believe the federal government has a right to regulate it.

[robinking]

Jan 15, 2011 15:09:47 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

Jan 15, 2011 15:03:56 GMT -5 robinking said:

Do you have bars over your windows? Have you ever walked to your car alone? To assume you're always safe is to allow yourself to become the victim. I know a lot of females who carry and feel this has leveled the playing field. You'd take that right away from them?

I never assume safety. Which is why I make intelligent decisions about how I act, dress, and where (and when) I go. Assuming a gun makes you safe is the height of stupidity. It is not a good replacement for wits. I'd take away their right if they were carrying assault weapons,didn't have mandated training, had mental health issues, or were too dumb to figure out that walking in dark alleys is a bad idea.

Well, I wish we could all be as intelligent as you. Elitist attitudes like your are what gradually erodes our freedoms. Your very tone implies you believe you have control at all times either by your intelligent decisions or your choice of venues. Unfortunately, life isn't this perfect. You choice of action, dress and location can't always be so perfectly choreographed. This implies there is never a slip up... that you are in fact perfect. I don't demand you own a weapon or even go so far as to call you stupid for not. But, my belief that a weapon in the hands of a 100lb woman on the "safe" subways on NYC equalizes her with a 200lbs mugger is far from "stupid" as you arrogantly claim.

[Loopdilou]

Jan 15, 2011 15:16:39 GMT -5 robinking said:

Jan 15, 2011 15:05:52 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

Typical chauvinist. It will be the defenseless woman's fault... or it's the perps fault (and the stupid woman's, but that is subordinate in blame to the rapists )

Attack me if you must, but my argument can't be broken. No; a woman who is attacked is not at fault... unless she goes into the situation knowing there is a chance for harm and doesn't take adequate precautions to protect herself.

Example:

Ice fishing is dangerous. If a man goes on the ice without properly surveying the thickness, he's stupid. If he falls under, we pay for his stupidity via a Coast Guard rescue and medical costs. Is he a victim? Yes, but this doesn't negate his own responsibility. Similarly, a woman who walks into a bad part of town with no prethought of defending herself is partly to blame for being stupid. She is a victim and the perp. deserves castration, but she should have used common sense.

This situation - in which someone knowingly puts themself into a dangerous situation and then harms or kills someone is called premeditated self-defense and can land you in prison (I lied.. this is only the case if the person instigates the attack). And your parallel is faulty. The ice fishermen is only a victim of stupidity.. the woman is a victim of RAPISTS.

[robinking]

Jan 15, 2011 15:17:51 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

If you have no choice to travel in a dark alley, you either need a new job or to learn how to approach your city council to get lights installed.

As for interpreting INTENT... the Founding Fathers were better educated in the written word than any modern American save professors of English. Their intent is pretty clear to anyone who knows even a modicum of grammar or punctuation.

"Dark alleys" is a metaphor for country roads, shopping mall parking lots, public restrooms... what stops a man in a big white van from parking next to a good looking woman's car and grabbing her in broad daylight? No, my lady friend's don't gallivant around with some naive belief they're immune from danger because they possess a weapon. They choose to add it to their arsenal of mace. What you speak of are just more weapons. What stops a child from grabbing your knife or mace?

As for the 2nd Amendment, it's clear. Debating the placement of a comma is rather pointless. My mother was an English teacher, so I feel my grammar is pretty good. I've never heard such a poor excuse for disarming it. But, I do agree with you that it doesn't say the government has no right to regulate guns. I see no problem requiring owners to take a class. We need to take a class to get a drivers license. The NRA needs to compromise on some things, but arguments such as yours only stoke the flames of partisanship and further drive a wedge between the normal 60% of Americans and the 20% fringes on the right and left.

[robinking]

Jan 15, 2011 15:30:47 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

Jan 15, 2011 15:16:39 GMT -5 robinking said:

Attack me if you must, but my argument can't be broken. No; a woman who is attacked is not at fault... unless she goes into the situation knowing there is a chance for harm and doesn't take adequate precautions to protect herself.

Example:

Ice fishing is dangerous. If a man goes on the ice without properly surveying the thickness, he's stupid. If he falls under, we pay for his stupidity via a Coast Guard rescue and medical costs. Is he a victim? Yes, but this doesn't negate his own responsibility. Similarly, a woman who walks into a bad part of town with no prethought of defending herself is partly to blame for being stupid. She is a victim and the perp. deserves castration, but she should have used common sense.

This situation - in which someone knowingly puts themself into a dangerous situation and then harms or kills someone is called premeditated self-deefense and can land you in prison. And your parallel is faulty. The ice fishermen is only a victim of stupidity.. the woman is a victim of RAPISTS.

What are you talking about? READ my example! I'm done with this pointless dribble.

[vonnie6200]

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.


Very well said I wish I were as eloquent

[Loopdilou]

Wait.. what? How the hell does my argument add to partisanship? One has to look at the details in order to stop organizations like the NRA from completely deregulating gun ownership! As for women getting grabbed... it's too late to use a gun if you've already been grabbed and most women who are paranoid enough to want a gun are paranoid enough to shoot an innocent person.

And knives and mace are not usually lethal to children or large crowds. Guns are.

[Loopdilou]

Force vs force is one of the least civilized things I can think of.

[vonnie6200]

most women who are paranoid enough to want a gun are paranoid enough to shoot an innocent person


That is a tad bit judgmental.

[Loopdilou]

Not really. It's called reflex triggered by snap decisions fueled by essentially looking for anything that could be assault (hence the term paranoid).

[vonnie6200]

Jan 15, 2011 15:50:09 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

Not really. It's called reflex triggered by snap decisions fueled by essentially looking for anything that could be assault (hence the term paranoid).

Sorry, but I've been a gun owner for over 40 yrs., and occas. carry a weapon (I also carried professionally for 20 yr.s) and I have not shot anyone yet.

I am a woman but not a paranoid woman.

[robinking]

Let me clarify one point in my example. No woman is ever responsible for being raped or attacked. I don't care if she walks naked in a gang infested part of town. BUT, she bares responsibility to HERSELF for making poor decisions. If she happens to make a poor decision and has a gun... at least she can rectify it. If she is grabbed, she then has the right to kill whoever grabbed her. This wouldn't count as an accidental shooting. By your logic, if her weapon is already been rendered useless upon being "grabbed" then so is her mace and or knife. The simple fact is, a 100lbs woman is less powerful than a 200 lbs attacker. I was raised by a feminist and believe all women need to be empowered either by self defense classes, a gun, mace, a knife or ALL of the above. My mom is a liberal and wants a gun!