The NY Times reports that the FBI has found material in Jared Loughner’s home indicating that
he had planned to kill Representative Gabrielle Giffords…. Found in Mr. Loughner’s home, F.B.I. special agent Tony M. Tayler Jr. said in an affidavit supporting the charges, was an envelope with the handwritten words, “I planned ahead,” “My assassination,” and “Giffords.” The details of the envelope were not disclosed.
Also, the 9-year-old girl killed in the attack was born on September 11, 2001.
Christina, who was born when the family was living in West Grove, Pennsylvania, was one of the 50 “Faces of Hope” representing babies from 50 states who were born on 9/11. Their images were printed in a book, with some of the proceeds used to raise money for a 9/11 charity.
About that girl, fate has such cruel irony sometimes. Hopefully she can still be a face of hope for others.
The question is what, if anything, we do about it.
<
p>Surely we must begin by naming it what it was, ending our collective denial, and engaging the difficult question of how we address these terrorists in our midst.
<
p>We don’t allow Americans to provide material support for groups that promote terrorism. As far as I’m concerned, that is an excellent starting point for looking very hard at the plethora of right-wing extremist groups who we allow to dominate public discourse today.
<
p>We don’t find it impossibly hard to draw rather firm boundaries on what is and is not permissible for Muslim terrorist organizations. It’s time we apply similar standards to our home-grown terrorist organizations.
A crazy guy shot a congresswoman.
<
p>That’s all we know.
<
p>The crosshairs thing, and many other pieces of right-wind rhetoric that “dominate public discourse”, was in poor taste and could very well have incited certain people to violence, although that may not be what has happened here. Obviously, we’re not looking at a situation that’s just “extremists on both sides”, “the politicians are in no way to blame”, etc.
<
p>But going after political activity because of the violent language and metaphors they use? Saying that it supports “terrorism”? That’s dangerous. We can never hold people pursuing nonviolent political activity responsible for a deranged madman, no matter how inflammatory some of their rhetoric may be.
<
p>Little that was said against, say, the Bush administration compares to what is happening today. But plenty of rhetoric was thrown around back then. Bush was a madman, a war criminal, a mass murderer. And some of this was legit. And some of this could easily have incited someone to take violent action.
<
p>But that’s a consequence of free speech.
<
p>Condemn Palin and her ilk because what they do and say is wrong and ridiculous and needlessly demonizes their political opponents. But we don’t need to talk about criminalizing this activity, which is what this post, talking about “material support”, seems to imply.
to Anwar al-awlaki, an American citizen, targeted for assassination by our government for his inflammatory speech.
Whether al-Awlaki can be prosecuted under US law is highly questionable, which is possibly why the Obama administration has taken the easier (if slightly more illegal and horrifying) path of assassinating him with no due process whatsoever. It’s so great that our president is such a constitutional scholar.
talk to themselves, blurt out bizarre, incoherent things, think they need to kill Ronald Reagan to rescue Jodi Foster–these people are out there and they pose a threat to all sorts of people. John Hinkley? Psychotic. Mark David Chapman? Psychotic.
<
p>Politics offers a place for their craziness to touch down and set the world on fire.
<
p>It would be nice to blame Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, because there are crazies out there whom they nurture with conspiracy theories and psychosis. But it doesn’t seem like this guy is one of them.
Yes, there are psychotics. Yes, it appears that Jared Loughner was disturbed (I don’t think we know nearly enough to offer a diagnosis of his mental state). The fact that “politics offers a place for their craziness to touch down and set the world on fire” does not excuse the obscenely incendiary rhetoric of the right wing in general and Sarah Palin in particular.
<
p>The peculiar and violent rhetoric of “lock and load”, “Second-Amendment solutions”, and “help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly” is more dangerous and more toxic to America than any pornography, and needs to be treated as the obscenity it is.
and not following so many who are using this for political gains.
<
p>- The level of incivility is far too high on our political scene and needs to be toned down. But none of that can be implicated as a cause of this tragedy. People get shot and killed every single day in our country. We have to figure out how to stop this or at least reduce it.
<
p>- Who gets guns in this country needs some very serious evaluation. We keep having events like this, albeit not nearly as severe as this one, and yet nothing is done. We need some serious gun reforms.
<
p>- We don’t know very many “facts” and yet people are jumping to many conclusions. Tough not to do this, as I am often guilty of doing it myself, but let’s find out the facts.
<
p>Shame on all who are using this and manipulating it.
An excellent comment. Do you think there is any appetite within the conservative community to revisit gun laws? The fact that Loughner was apparently able to buy a semi-automatic weapon a few weeks ago seems amazing to me.
IMO, the political obstacle of changing the gun laws is they are “state laws”. There are many anti-gun conservatives such as myself, but I believe we live in states which are already fairy “anti-gun” (see chart below). The Arizona’s of the country will never get rid of guns and will fight laws which they believe are restrictive. As long as there are states like Arizona, then people from MA can drive there and buy a gun (from someone). We could try using criminal statutes but initiatives like “mandatory gun/crime sentences” are not very popular even among Liberals.
<
p>Our only chance is some Federal laws favoring some “sane” restrictions which don’t sound like an attempt to take guns away from “regular” people.
<
p>However, this was a setback to any thoughts of further restricting guns (McDonald v. Chicago)…
<
p>
<
p>And before we get to angry about those “southern” states, I would remind BMGers that our own Vermont has a “no carry” law which means you don’t even need a permit to own a gun in Vermont AND you can carry a concealed weapon (except into a courthouse).
<
p>SO… we have a “border state to MA” with laws which make Arizona’s look tough!
<
p>Vermont’s laws…
<
p>Rifles and Shotguns
<
p>Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No.
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No.
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No.
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No.
<
p>Handguns
<
p>Permit to purchase handgun? No.
Registration of handguns? No.
Licensing of owners of handguns? No.
Permit to carry handguns? No.
<
p>No permit necessary to carry concealed.
<
p>Purchase
<
p>No permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales, and used handgun purchases.
<
p>Scary!!!
<
p>
For example, Rep. Shirley Gomes (R-Harwich) filed and got passed legislation that would allow doctors to notify local licensing authorities (aka police departments) when a patient had a diagnosis of Alzheimers without running afoul of HIPPA, similar to that enjoyed by eye doctors who can notify the RMV. Her main concern was a domestic violence one, based on an incident in Harwich where a person shot a relative they no longer recognized. The bill had the support of GOAL and other gun rights groups as it was a sensible restriction.
<
p>IMO, too much gun control is (a) badly disguised aboltion, and (b) too concerned with make and model instead of person. When x is outlawed, gun manufactureres make a minor change and reintroduce essentially the same gun as y – sort of like generic drugs.
<
p>How about exempting psychiatrists? Or how about ANYONE who fails military testing due to psych reasons doesn’t get a license?
“IMO, too much gun control is (a) badly disguised aboltion…”
<
p>We might want to revisit abolition, but that’d be a constitutional issue.
<
p>What you’ve hit on here encapsulates many of my thoughts on so much abortion legislation.
semi automatic pistol with ammunition clips of over 30 shots is to kill people. It’s not used for hunting. It’s not designed for self-defense (unless you are defending against an invading army). It’s designed to kill people and lots of them. I find it appalling that anyone could oppose significant regulation if not outright banning of such a weapon. I’m all in favor of law enforcement using such weapons, but these things should not be easily obtained.
often/usually/always (not sure which) have patients sign something that says, if a patient proves dangerous to himself or others, confidentiality may not apply.
<
p>Here’s a cite for California. Someone on here must know the details for Massachusetts.
was a state senator in Maine. This was back in the mid-80s. Some backwoods wacko left a message on his machine: “Sen. Bost, you’re the devil and I’m going to kill you.” He never shot Sen. Bost, but he was picked up wandering the woods near the Bush compound. And yes, he was armed.
Mother Jones has an interview with a close friend of Loughner. It reveals a lot. Although he had a grudge against Giffords, I’d say he’s mainly unbalanced.