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.
Why should we do battle over left violence versus right violence? The issue is violence and reasonable people on both sides should condemn it regardless of where it is and stop the finger-pointing and "they did it first" garbage. Equally unhelpful is the broad brush of labeling all on the left or right by the violence from a few. That just fosters the previously mentioned excusing of the violence.
that is a good point, but the op's intention in posting about this is to say that people should be unconcerned about people bringing assault weapons to presidential speeches because they are on the right and the left are the side that's violent. that is why i countered the way i did.
this argument ignores the numerous incidents of politically motivated gun violence from people on the right just since obama was elected.
violence that isn't in self defense is wrong no matter what, but left-wing political violence in the u.s. is something that hasn't happened since the 70s (violence towards people, not towards property. if i'm wrong, feel free to correct me.). right-wing political violence is something that is going on now.
Why should we do battle over left violence versus right violence? The issue is violence and reasonable people on both sides should condemn it regardless of where it is and stop the finger-pointing and "they did it first" garbage. Equally unhelpful is the broad brush of labeling all on the left or right by the violence from a few. That just fosters the previously mentioned excusing of the violence.
Because it is part of the party hard liners game to blame. Its the old your worse than us,, noooo your worse than we are,, nooooooooo your the worst,, noooooooooooooooooo you guys are worse.
never any room for compromise.
that is a good point, but the op's intention in posting about this is to say that people should be unconcerned about people bringing assault weapons to presidential speeches because they are on the right and the left are the side that's violent. that is why i countered the way i did.
this argument ignores the numerous incidents of politcally motivated gun violence from people on the right just since obama was elected.
violence that isn't in self defense is wrong no matter what, but left-wing political violence in the u.s. is something that hasn't happened since the 70s (if i'm wrong, feel free to correct me.). right-wing political violence is something that is going on now.
numerous incidents of politcally motivated gun violence from people on the right just since obama was elected? Feel like elaborating on that? I think you're fibbing a bit here.
Why is the MSM always so hysterical about law-abiding gun owners at political events? History suggests it's liberals the Secret Service should be watching.
Actor/Activist John Wilkes Booth shot President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865, because he was opposed to Lincoln’s Republican war policies.
Charles J. Guiteau, who shot President James Garfield in 1881, had a long relationship with a utopian commune called The Oneida Community, where free love and communal child-rearing were practiced.
Leon Czolgosz, who killed President William McKinley in 1901, was a socialist/anarchist who was captivated upon hearing a speech by radical socialist Emma Goldman the year he shot McKinley. If memory serves, Goldman’s inspirational speech had something to do with “hope†and “change.â€
John Shrank, who shot and wounded Teddy Roosevelt in 19212, seemed to have no political beliefs other than a strong opposition to third terms.
Giuseppe Zangara, who narrowly missed shooting President-elect Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. Earlier, Zangara had plotted to kill Republican President Herbert Hoover, because both Hoover and Roosevelt were “capitalists.â€
Lee Harvey Oswald, who shot President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, was a stone-cold Communist ever since he read a Communist pamphlet about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as a teenager.
Sirhan Sirhan, who shot Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Robert Kennedy on June 5, 1968, was a Palestinian extremist angry with Kennedy for his support of Israel.
Whats wrong with you? Violence is violence no matter the person's party affiliation. Some of these threads by both sides are so juvenile its amazing there coming from folks who are suppose to be adults.
numerous incidents of politcally motivated gun violence from people on the right just since obama was elected? Feel like elaborating on that? I think you're fibbing a bit here.
i listed them on the last page. besides the church shooting, they are all since obama took office.
the murder of dr. tiller.
the pittsburgher who shot 5 policemen.
the holocaust museum shooting.
if i go back 15 years or so i could list many, many more.
i've asked before for an example of someone on the left doing something similar in the last 30 years. so far no one has been able to give me one.
that is a good point, but the op's intention in posting about this is to say that people should be unconcerned about people bringing assault weapons to presidential speeches because they are on the right and the left are the side that's violent. that is why i countered the way i did.
this argument ignores the numerous incidents of politcally motivated gun violence from people on the right just since obama was elected.
violence that isn't in self defense is wrong no matter what, but left-wing political violence in the u.s. is something that hasn't happened since the 70s (if i'm wrong, feel free to correct me). right-wing political violence is something that is going on now.
I'm not okay with anyone on either side bringing weapons to a presidential speech. I'm not okay with violence by either side, with the exception of self-defense as you mention. I'm sure there has been political violence from the left in the form of environmentalist burning property etc., but that's beside the point. It would make sense that the nuts on the right are more active, if they in fact are, because someone on the left is in power and pursuing things they don't agree with. Either way, reasonable people shouldn't tolerate it no matter what side does it. By the way, I know you're not arguing that point.
Because it is part of the party hard liners game to blame. Its the old your worse than us,, noooo your worse than we are,, nooooooooo your the worst,, noooooooooooooooooo you guys are worse.
never any room for compromise.
you're right about property destruction from the left, but i really don't think that's on the same level as going out and shooting people.
i don't recall people on the left going out and shooting or killing or hurting people while bush was in power for 8 years. 8 months into obama's term and we have 5 people dead in politically-motivated shootings.
i don't think that this violence is characteristic of the vast majority of the right (although there are people in this thread condoning some of it, which i think is sick). but the fact is, this element exists on the right and it doesn't seem to on the left (at present). people are right to be worried about the president's safety when people are bringing guns to his speeches, no matter what side they're on. but people on the left just didn't do that when bush was president, so discussing the assassination of mckinley or whatever and saying that the left is the violent side is sort of a moot point.
Last edited by groar; 08-20-2009 at 12:11 PM..
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.
