Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In some people's lollipops and rainbow world, police officers' bullets are treated with magic pixie dust that cause them to only hit bad guys. The only reason police officers weren't magically on the scene at the moment the attack started was because the chief of police, Harry Potter, didn't cast a spell to wish them there.
I would assume that the fact that her husband was shot has made it impossible for her to be rational about guns.
What makes it even crazier is that Gabrielle Giffords calls herself a "Second Amendment Democrat". She very much defends the right to own a gun, and she'd probably vote against McCarthy's legislation.
You're supposed to go into politics to serve the people, not perpetuate some sort of sick vendetta.
I agree...there's some irony that Gifford would oppose this bill.
Will The Proposed New Bill Due To The Arizona Shooting End Political Discourse?
Without knowing if the shooting incident with Congresswoman Giffords was politically motivated, The Hill is reporting "Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or incitingviolence against a federal official or member of Congress."
From what we know, this crackpot had been in touch with the congresswoman as early as 2007 as they found her correspondence to him in his home. We also know he was acting so disturbed in a math class that students, at the time, said they were afraid of him. There are photos now of a skull in his yard. I guess what I'm trying to say is, "Do you think this incident is being used to do something else?
"Could be perceived" by whom? If an actual threat is made, aren't there already laws on the books to cover it and define "could be perceived as inciting." Our Justice Department didn't perceive two menacing New Black Panthers with weapons outside of a voting booth as threatening.
I don't know if that's the actual language in the bill or merely The Hill's take on it but "that could be perceived" and "inciting" sounds like to me a too easy way to shut down political discourse like in this forum and do another stab at shutting down talk radio. I don't object to politicians being more safe and secure from nutjobs but I sure hope the actual language of the bill is more precise than "could be perceived" and defines "inciting" because it sounds to me right now like the incident is being used for other purposes.
Slippery slopism and will only lead to further violations of our First Amendment rights.
I can hear Rahm in the backround..."never let a tragedy go to waste"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason police officers weren't magically on the scene at the moment the attack started was because the chief of police, Harry Potter, didn't cast a spell to wish them there.
Will The Proposed New Bill Due To The Arizona Shooting End Political Discourse?
