[Illuyankas]

I'm commenting on my displeasure at being unable to view this clip because of international copyright bullshit. DAMN RIGHT IT'S NONCONSTRUCTIVE

[foolio]

might find this from Slate interesting about Palin....http://www.slate.com/id/2280964/
I thought it summed up her hypocrisy nicely.....


Sarah Palin, Blood-Libel Hypocrite

Sarah Palin opposes collective blame for monstrous crimes, unless they're committed by Muslims.
By William SaletanPosted Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2011, at 11:55 AM ETSee Slate's complete coverage of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and arrest of Jared Lee Loughner.

Sarah Palin is outraged. In a Facebook post this morning, she responds to critics who have suggested that her target map of Democrats, which put a crosshairs-like symbol over the district of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., may have contributed to the Tucson shooting. Palin writes:

After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event. President Reagan said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies … journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Sarah Palin (left) and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
That's what Palin believes. Each person is solely accountable for his actions. Acts of monstrous criminality "begin and end with the criminals who commit them." It's wrong to hold others of the same nationality, ethnicity, or religion "collectively" responsible for mass murders.

Unless, of course, you're talking about Muslims. In that case, Palin is fine with collective blame. In fact, she's enthusiastic about it. Palin was the first national politician to join the jihad against what she called the "planned mosque at Ground Zero" (which wasn't a mosque and wasn't at Ground Zero, but let's cut her some slack). In her statement, issued six months ago on the same Facebook page where she now denounces collective blame, she wrote this:
To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks. … I agree with the sister of one of the 9/11 victims (and a New York resident) who said: "This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists. I think that it is incredibly insensitive and audacious really for them to build a mosque, not only on that site, but to do it specifically so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened."

The last bit is a falsehood—proximity wasn't the motive for choosing the site—but again, let's cut Palin some slack. They key phrase to focus on is "a mosque." Palin used it twice—once in the quote, and once in her own words—so it can't be passed off as inadvertent. Her objection wasn't just to a specific imam or sect, much less to an identifiable terrorist. It was to any Islamic house of worship near Ground Zero.

Palin has never retracted this position. Indeed, she has persisted in her opposition to any mosque near Ground Zero. Her position is that the act of monstrous criminality on 9/11 doesn't end with the criminals who committed it. Its stigma extends to any mosque near the site. All Muslims should yield to that stigma. All Muslims are responsible.

"Blood libel," as defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, is historically targeted not at a country but at a religion. Palin's campaign against any Muslim house of worship near Ground Zero, based on group blame for terrorism, fits that definition more closely than does any current accusation against the Tea Party.

It didn't matter to Palin that the imam behind the "mosque" (which was actually an Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero) had denounced terrorism. Shortly after 9/11, the imam, Faisal Abdul Rauf, appeared on 60 Minutes and was asked this question:

Ed Bradley: What would you say to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?

Abdul Rauf: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That's just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But the Quran—you know, God says in the Quran that they think that they're doing right, but they're doing wrong.

Palin ignored the imam's denunciation of violence. Now she repudiates the massacre in Tucson and expresses outrage that anyone would associate her with it.

In today's Facebook post, Palin writes: "Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today." Indeed. But when the events of 9/11 challenged our values, Palin surrendered. A decade later, she remains willing to trade freedom, not for security, but for "sensitivity" to her supporters' anger at Muslims generally. She's willing to issue blood libels and sacrifice people's freedoms. She just doesn't want the same done to her.

[Abyss]

Tapper, on 13 January 2011 - 02:04 PM, said:

...Finally, her use of the term 'blood libel' in her reaction to that was bordering on insanity. I doubt the term is a standard in her vocabulary to begin with, so why pick it now?

I seriously doubt she wrote the statement, and i similarly doubt the staffer that did write it actually knew what it meant. Palin isn't exactly attracting Harvard graduates to her service these days.

[Shinrei]

What's up, I just tried to rep foolio for that post but the forum won't let me...

[Tsundoku]

Shinrei, on 13 January 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

What's up, I just tried to rep foolio for that post but the forum won't let me...

http://forum.malazan...=0

[foolio]

Shinrei, on 13 January 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

What's up, I just tried to rep foolio for that post but the forum won't let me...

thanks for the effort.....


I hated to post such a long article from Slate but I thought many here would find it interesting.

[McLovin]

I'm tired of the political rhetoric angle, so let me throw this out: the shooter was carrying a Glock 17 semiautomatic handgun, which normally holds 10 rounds in the clip. However, he had outfitted his handgun with a 36-shot clip (presumably available aftermarket from your local dealer). This is why he was able to peel off so many shots before getting subdued.

Let's stipulate the right of this guy to own a handgun. Is there a right to own high-capacity magazines/clips for those guns? Is it valid to say a 36-shot clip has a "self-defensive" purpose? To me, this is similar to assault rifles or grenades - their purpose is not defense, but offense only. You don't need 36 shots to stop a home invader.

[Tapper]

Abyss, on 13 January 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

Tapper, on 13 January 2011 - 02:04 PM, said:

...Finally, her use of the term 'blood libel' in her reaction to that was bordering on insanity. I doubt the term is a standard in her vocabulary to begin with, so why pick it now?

I seriously doubt she wrote the statement, and i similarly doubt the staffer that did write it actually knew what it meant. Palin isn't exactly attracting Harvard graduates to her service these days.

In which case it is doubly stupid that she read the statement out on video before getting a dictionary to search for the words she didn't know.

[Tapper]

McLovin, on 14 January 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

I'm tired of the political rhetoric angle, so let me throw this out: the shooter was carrying a Glock 17 semiautomatic handgun, which normally holds 10 rounds in the clip. However, he had outfitted his handgun with a 36-shot clip (presumably available aftermarket from your local dealer). This is why he was able to peel off so many shots before getting subdued.

Let's stipulate the right of this guy to own a handgun. Is there a right to own high-capacity magazines/clips for those guns? Is it valid to say a 36-shot clip has a "self-defensive" purpose? To me, this is similar to assault rifles or grenades - their purpose is not defense, but offense only. You don't need 36 shots to stop a home invader.

Unless you're a very bad shot?

[Adjutant Stormy~]

2nd Amendment is rocky territory. That said, it's impossible to guarantee security. Any attempts to do so are just security theater (see airports, etc). If you ban sales of large-capacity clips, or assault rifles, or what have you, people can (and will) still acquire them. Drugs are illegal, and they're no less prevalent. You have to be ok with trusting that most people aren't fucking insane.

[Illuyankas]

Yeah, but it's going to be correspondingly harder to acquire said magazines and guns once banned, leading to less chance of the sanity-deprived getting hold of them in the first place. And it's pretty hard to kill other people with drugs unless you go out with a dartgun or a bucket of syringes and a good throwing arm.

[Shinrei]

Adjutant Stormy, on 15 January 2011 - 12:14 AM, said:

2nd Amendment is rocky territory. That said, it's impossible to guarantee security. Any attempts to do so are just security theater (see airports, etc). If you ban sales of large-capacity clips, or assault rifles, or what have you, people can (and will) still acquire them. Drugs are illegal, and they're no less prevalent. You have to be ok with trusting that most people aren't fucking insane.

This is basically it. The logic of some of the gun control laws doesn't make a lot of sense. Who follows a gun law like no conceal-carry? Law-abiding gun owners (the vast majority of gun owners). Who is going to break the gun laws? Criminals or crazy people. So what does the law prevent? Nothing at all.

In Japan where it's more difficult to acquire guns and handguns are illegal for anyone except police, the yakuza can get a hold of guns.

[Shinrei]

Illuyankas, on 15 January 2011 - 12:55 AM, said:

Yeah, but it's going to be correspondingly harder to acquire said magazines and guns once banned, leading to less chance of the sanity-deprived getting hold of them in the first place. And it's pretty hard to kill other people with drugs unless you go out with a dartgun or a bucket of syringes and a good throwing arm.

He's saying that making drugs illegal hasn't done much to lessen their presence. There are gazillions of guns in the US - they're not going to disappear. And I'd bet there'd be a lovely black market flowing in from S. America if they did.

[Nicodimas]

If I want to own a 33 round magazine or 60,90,150<http://www.armatac.com/products.html>...whatever it doesn't matter, I should be able. Freedom is what it is about. It has nothing to about what is logical for self defence. The whole point of any weapon is for offensive purposes. You can delve into what is needed and unneeded for that it you could go crazy. Go to a gun forum to see the arguments between what is "proper" for self defence. Some nutball will always find a way to take out a bunch of people. They will find the tool whether it be a bomb, gun, knife, or even other people. There are other tools available to that person to cause destruction. Thats the part of freedom that is hard as a society we have to pray that such a incident will not be unleashed by someone evil. We can't have certain freedom's unless we allow them. Trust is due to citizens.. This is one that fits firmly in the gun camp and should not be regulated.

There is no need to limit something such a magazine size. It has nothing to do with self defence, just making a tool as effective as possible to the user. If anything this event should make you want to carry...remember the police are there to protect "Society", not any paticular individual that is up to you!

[MTS]

I think Shinrei and Illy are right. In pretty much all cases any sort of prohibition has been shown not to work. Besides, you can't legislate for the crazy, and no law is foolproof. I'm not saying any sort of measure to limit it is futile, but I don't think it's the most effective solution. Some of the laws being proposed in Congress are ridiculously impracticable too, like the one where it would be illegal to carry a firearm within 100 feet of any government official. The cynical part of me feels that's just politicians trying to heighten their image on the back of this tragedy, not out of a serious drive for gun reform, since the bills are so ridiculous. Even if the laws being proposed would work, I doubt we'll see significant curtailing of gun legislation anytime soon. The Republicans are definitely not going to budge on that issue, Democrats won't want to challenge 2nd Amendment rights after badly losing an election, the arms trade is a rather big industry in the US (by the way, can you seriously buy guns at Wal-Mart?), and let's not forget the NRA pumping millions of dollars into Congresspersons' campaign funds.

@Nico, that sort of attitude is why we'll never see significant gun reform anytime soon. The attitude is that gun control is perfect the way it is, and it would impinge on your 'freedoms' to change it. In my opinion, that's utter crap, since it would not curtail your right to bear arms, only how many bullets you can fire at one time. It's not limiting how many bullets you can buy, only how frequently you have to reload. A higher magazine size is really more about convenience. I don't see any legal situation in which it would be utterly essential for you to need 36 shots without reloading instead of the normal 10 (this is the average civilian, not police or anything like that). Oh, and if a weapon is purely meant for offensive purposes, why is the main argument for gun ownership that it is essential to protect yourself from criminals?

This post has been edited by MTS: 15 January 2011 - 01:34 AM

[Nicodimas]

You used to be able to buy guns at the gas station without a FBI NICS check. All that has happens over the last eighty years is gun rights have gone down. In 1986 the newest part of the machine gun act passed and with it went the last machine guns in the U.S. Fortuanately for all gun owners will 300 million guns in America it's here to stay.


Well with a class 3 you can get a machine gun, silencer, short barrel rifle etc still. Hard to get though... I have been thinking of putting in for one of these

http://sgcusa.com/Ri...-SPC-PSD-(PSD68)/product_info.html
http://sgcusa.com/Cl..._152/index.html
OR
http://sgcusa.com/Cl..._237/index.html

Well someday! The gun culture is very ingrained in America and is going nowhere.

why is the main argument for gun ownership that it is essential to protect yourself from criminals

Well thats more of psychological thing to me. It makes people feel safer to know they have the greatest equalizer on earth. It makes a criminal think twice also about robbing/raping that women. Ultimately, it's a matter of a freedom- it's one that is firmly ingrained in the American people that they will fight for. The more you understand about guns most arguments that come from anti-gunners make no sense.

A 1000 foot barrier serves zero purpose but disarm the law abiding citizens. How does this makes sense even in the slightest when someone is about to go to KILL people? I think we can all agree that this person isn't going to stop over a rule when they want to do this. All it does is make these politicians one step higher than there subjects.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 15 January 2011 - 01:50 AM

[Tsundoku]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Guns just make it absurdly easy to kill a lot more people, all at once, on the spur of the moment. Especially high-capacity semi-automatic weapons that are childishly simple to rework into fully automatic, with the cheerful assistance of those after market kit

http://en.wikipedia....cs_in_Australia

People will always find ways to kill themselves, or other people. Restrictions on classes of weapons available, accessories like extra capacity magazines, and tighter controls on who can have licenses at least have the effect of cutting down on the spree killings, be they "crime of passion" based or premeditated.

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress, which reads: "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.[6] Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation (differences bolded): "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.[7]"

Everyday citizens that have no connection to a professional requirement to own a gun do not need a gun. If you are a member of a sporting shooters club, your appropriate gun should be kept in a massive, bad-arse safe at the club. People with a history of serious mental illness should never, ever be able to get a license.

By the way, I have used "gun" instead of the more correct "rifle", "pistol", "revolver" etc simply because I'm lazy.

You might argue that doesn't stop crazy from using a knife. True, it doesn't. But unlike as we have seen recently in China with the horrible massacres in primary schools, a crazy with a knife is far more easily subdued with less damage by adults than little kids who I suspect were made targets by these Chinese crazies simply because they were unable to fight back.

Michael Moore may be a dickhead and self-confessed "propagandist", but he got one thing right with "Bowling for Columbine" when he stated the USA is ruled by fear. Unlike, say, Canada which has higher levels of per-capita gun ownership (with greater restrictions) but a much lower gun death rate.

A friend travelling through the USA back in the 90s went through Texas at one point. While he had a great time and the people were very friendly, he was quite disturbed when he walked into a gun shop for a quick browse and the owner offered to sell him (what I believe to be) an AR-15, purely on the basis of his Australian Driver's License. I thought he was joking but he swore ever after that he was not making anything up or exaggerating in the slightest, and thinking about it still freaked him out.

[Nicodimas]

The problem with the mental health argument is..I think everyone else is crazy. Really any single person can flip out on a bad day. I hope it never ever happens to anyone i know, but everyone educated knows it possible. Especially if you understand how the mental system truly works on a person. A person can without prior knowledge do horrible things on a bad day. Its called disassocation and it's a real thing and not talked about in society often. This is probably one of the more scary things in society. It doesn't involve drugs either. Most mental health issues aren't discussed as the person is considered 'Weak'. No it's called being human and its one of our weaknesses. Ok so we know this current suspect got a gun and had mental issues AFTER the fact. Police aren't going to raid peoples houses to take guns from people who have these issues, unless they use them. You do realize people can threaten all they want and cops can't do a thing? It's not until the act is done can he respond in 99.9% of cases.

Ultimately, you as a person if you live in America better know how to protect yourself...

To switch the subject onto something I know way less about. IS America a fearful nation...compared to say Europeans countries. Or is it just a matter of two totally different cultures?

[Illuyankas]

I always thought the 'criminals will just get guns anyway' argument pretty stupid, really. Sure, they'll find their way to get the bigger pieces despite the law, but it'll be much harder, much more expensive and require much more effort to get guns from across a border instead of a Borders, that in itself lowering crime rates.

And Nico, ensuring someone who snaps has that firearm just so you can have your own to defend yourself is not going to help someone in the workplace, or the post office, for the usual examples. Oh, and the barrier thing does help point out who is trying to assassinate the politician, cause if everyone pulls a gun after a shot rings out the initial shooter would be exceedingly difficult to pick out through the crowd.

[Nicodimas]

Illuyankas, on 15 January 2011 - 03:47 AM, said:

I always thought the 'criminals will just get guns anyway' argument pretty stupid, really. Sure, they'll find their way to get the bigger pieces despite the law, but it'll be much harder, much more expensive and require much more effort to get guns from across a border instead of a Borders, that in itself lowering crime rates.

And Nico, ensuring someone who snaps has that firearm just so you can have your own to defend yourself is not going to help someone in the workplace, or the post office, for the usual examples. Oh, and the barrier thing does help point out who is trying to assassinate the politician, cause if everyone pulls a gun after a shot rings out the initial shooter would be exceedingly difficult to pick out through the crowd.

A: No to lowering crime rates. All you would be doing is increasing the amount of crime, by outlawing something people would naturally want. A means to to protect themselves properly. Talk about creating a new black market with GUNS? Sorry the gun culture is far to absorbed in American to be anything, but genetically modified out. If such a thing happens I am fighting with every inch of being as it something worth dieing for. It's that important as it provides us with our freedom.

B: The person is in trouble at this point...1000 feet is 333 yards. A rifle with a scope that is hardly a difficult shot with modern weapons. Everyone? most people react out of fear when they would hear the gunshot, only a person well trained to fear is really going to be able to react rationally and draw down on that person. A person loses roughly 80% of there gun skills in this situation they damn well better know how to deal with the intial stress to shoot this person, or miss, potenitally hurting a innocent. No rational person wants to miss there shot just to hurt someone else.

^
This shooter was in AZ arguably a very pro gun state, he was tackled not shot. Granted I argue this would have been less likely at a right wing event, but who knowsit could of went down the same way for reasons mentioned above. Got to have a good shot in that small amount of time. This event has given me cause to ponder why nobody shot him...thats my only thought I could come up with.