Should the Tuscon shootings lead to tougher gun laws?

Let's look at it this way...

The U.K.enacted Very strict gun control laws. Immediately thereafter stabbing deaths went on the rise. I'd wager that if they outlawed knives, beatings with clubs deaths would go on the rise.  It's not the weapon, it's the person behind it.

Maybe if some of those attending that meeting had been packing, that lunatic wouldn't have gotten off too many shots before someone else could have stopped him.

As Gaffin stated, when one thing is outlawed the would be criminals will find another way to do what they want to get done.

I do believe back ground checks should be more strict. But if the weapon is stolen who can control them then.

Every Red blood American need to arm themselves against the phycos.Lock and load

Every time I see an outlaw biker, I gotta wonder how many pistols he is packing, all of 'em illegal.  I can't own guns legal cause I got a record.  When I was 15, my mom was turning tricks and two of her johns got into it.  I hit one of these guys with my baseball bat on the leg.  He got away but the judge looked daggers at me and handed down assault 1 with intent.  Man, I didn't do anything but defend my mother!

Well, that marks me a violent criminal for life.  No way back out either. 

I guess if I took one of these track loaders and put a steel shell over the top and went crazy, I could kill hundreds of folks.  I ain't gonna do that cause I don't want it on my conscience.

Some folks got no conscience cause they don't think anything matters.  When you realize you matter, you don't put crime on your spirit, specially violent crime.

In the days since the massacre in Arizona, the mainstream political media (and much online discussion) have zeroed in on one question: Did the uncivil political discourse (with violent imagery) of the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins of the world create an environment that encouraged or allowed an unhinged character to go on a shooting spree aimed at a Democratic congresswoman.

I would like to focus on a related question: Are the right wing pundits telling the truth?

The reason for my approach is that whether or not the toxic political environment influenced Jared Loughner, it is important to recognize that for the last two years, the right wing media has employed a concerted strategy to elicit in their listeners/viewers anger and a sense of delegitimization of the government (whether literally, in the form of the birthers, or ideologically, with false claims of socialism, or in practice, with false accusations of unconstitutionality and corruption that fly in the face of history and the record). And to do so largely by making baseless charges.

And when I listened and read as these right wing purveyors of venom rejected the claim that their incendiary rhetoric might have spurred an unstable individual to action, I was struck by how, once again, their approach to the issue was to make baseless charges rather than engage on the issue.

For example, Rush Limbaugh declared:

"At no time has anybody ever called for violence. ... We've never subtly promoted it."

But it was just one year ago that Limbaugh said (in reference to the economy):

"This government is governing against its own citizens. This president and his party are governing against us. We are at war with our own president. We are at war with our own government."

Want a more recent example? On January 10, 2011, after the shooting, Limbaugh said this about claims that violent right-wing rhetoric might have influenced Loughner:

"Don't kid yourself. What this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it. Criminalizing policy differences at least when they differ from the Democrat (sic) Party agenda."

So Limbaugh asserted last year that the government is at "war" with the American people, and he claimed days ago that the Democrats want to criminalize dissent. (Remember, Limbaugh is the guy who, in 1995, predicted a "second violent American revolution.") He urges his viewers to recognize that the president and his government aren't legitimate. That is not promoting violence?

And these are hardly isolated incidents. Rather, the use of this kind of baseless violent and anti-government language is part of the regular, day-in-day-out approach of these right-wing leaders. Some examples (there are tons of others):

- On June 10, 2010 Beck passionately warned his viewers that former radicals who want to "eliminate 10 percent of the population" (he makes it clear he means kill people) and "overthrow" the "United States government" are now working in the Obama administration so they can carry out their desires (charging that Obama is more corrupt than Nixon).

- If Palin's cross-hairs map and "reload" comment don't bother you, how about when she spoke at a Tea Party event in February 2010 and said: "America is ready for another revolution" (which, given the context, carries a specific connotation and certainly subtly condones violent reprisals against the government).

- Big Journalism (on March 10, 2010) wrote that the president was "the suicide-bomber-in-chief" who wants to "blow up the capitalist system from within."

- Sharron Angle, a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat, happily endorsed "Second Amendment remedies" and implied that an armed revolution may be necessary.

These examples represent a tiny drop in a much larger bucket.

My point is simply this: These leading right-wing figures regularly engage in rhetoric with the intention of rousing listeners to believe the government is illegitimate and dangerous. Sometimes the approach is to use threats of imminent government aggression (e.g. Beck's warning about mass murders and Limbaugh's prediction of government crackdowns on dissent), while other times they use language to promote the idea that the conflict is a violent one (e.g. Limbaugh's "war" comment). And they do so using baseless claims.

When Palin lectures on how debate during elections is good and then people look for common ground after the election is over, she's right, but it's also hypocritical, since it's not how she practices politics (or, more accurately for her, media punditry).

So these leaders can't have it both ways. If Beck, Limbaugh and Palin want to say that Loughner was a mentally ill individual who acted based on his own demons, and the incendiary language of right-wing media figures had no role, I encourage them to make their cases forcefully in front of the American people. While I believe that constant warnings that the government is illegitimate and planning totalitarian actions (murders, media clampdowns) can have an effect, there is certainly merit to the argument that crazy people will do crazy things.

(Although any fair argument on the issue has to go beyond this one incident to include the string of violent acts and threats directed at Democrats since President Obama took office.)

But what these right-wing media figures can't honestly claim is that they are not engaging in violent and delegitimizing rhetoric. Actually, I find it especially cowardly that Limbaugh would spend a chunk of his show on Monday slinging blame everywhere for Loughner's actions (including heavy metal music, rap music, parents, etc.) and accusing Democrats of being happy about the massacre, but he didn't have the balls to stand up for what he does. If he really had any integrity, he would have defended his rhetorical style.

The implications of a right-wing media system that masquerades as journalism without any commitment to the truth is one of the biggest threats to our democracy. So in the aftermath of the Arizona tragedy, I couldn't help but zero in on the right wing lies rather than focus on the incivility.

I admired President Obama's speech yesterday in Tuscon, but rather than learning a lesson about civility from this tragedy, I hope we learn a lesson about truth. Debates on how we should conduct our political discourse are great. But these debates need to be on the facts, not on made-up fantasies and defensive lies.

The verbosity and mendacity of Jerome never ceases to amaze me.  What lie will he not tell to support Obama bin Laden, Stalin, and Hitler?  After all, they were the primary role models of all anti-gun fanatics in the world today.

Is there anything left to prove?

Gun control is not going to stop  the violence or shutting people up will not stop it.  It never has and it never will. What you need to understand is that politicians know first and far most that in order to do away with the second amendment they have to strip you of the first amendment and they are working on it. So all the anti gun nuts , will when you need help to protect yourself from danger don't call on us that do protect ourselves from danger.

Last week, Sarah Palin defended the tone of her rhetoric after accusations that it may have contributed to the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords. She unrepentantly noted that at one time, elected officials used to settle scores by fighting duels. I have to admit, Sarah's right. She reminded me once again that it is not incivility in politics that is so dangerous -- it's stupidity.

The real crisis in American politics isn't about one tragic shooting, it's about a cultural phenomenon -- the celebration of stupidity -- that has taken over this country. These days, there is no place idiocy flourishes more than in the Republican Party -- from Senatorial candidates who campaign on the 'not a witch' platform, to a sitting Congresswoman who hints that filling out the census may land you in an internment camp. These are the shining faces leading the GOP in the 21st century.

Richard Hofstadter's 1964 classic, Anti-intellectualism in American Life, goes a long way to explain our current predicament. In the 47 years since Hofstadter wrote his exegesis on anti-intellectualism, the American public has been the victim of an ever-growing onslaught of crazy.

Though you would never know it today, the American conservative movement once had a strong foundation in serious ideas from serious thinkers. Today, noteworthy men like Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, and William F. Buckley, have been replaced by Glenn Beck -- a conspiracy theorist who cultivated a coke habit rather than obtaining a college degree. And let's not forget Sarah Palin, who meandered through 5 different colleges to earn one degree but evidently missed out on English 101. No wonder the crux of conservative ideology -- a preference for slow and temperate change -- has been replaced by a Tea Party crusade to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments of our Constitution.

For a distressing example of just how lost the GOP is, look to the headliners of this year's Conservative Political Action Committee conference, to be held February 10th in D.C. -- Crazy Ann Coulter, Andrew 'pimps and hos' Breitbart, and Rick 'man-on-dog' Santorum. Not to mention Sen. Jim DeMint -- who recently proposed unmarried pregnant women be barred from teaching in public schools. No matter where one falls on the political spectrum, you can't help but get the feeling these folks should not be offered a seat at the grown-up table. Hofstadter's description of those leading the anti-intellectual charge as "the marginal intellectuals, would-be intellectuals, unfrocked or embittered intellectuals, the literate leaders of the semi-literate" rings painfully true today.

Ideologically motivated influencers have been replaced in the cultural hierarchy by puppet-masters who specialize in turning the brazen stupidity of the Tea Party into dollar signs. As the Russell Kirks came to be replaced by the Koch brothers -- the corporate billionaires now running the conservative scene- any political theory the party leaders used to hold has been replaced by a penchant for straight corporate-ocracy. The Tea Party advocates that climate science is a conspiracy developed by evil scientists, but never questions the conspiracy of polluting behemoths funding their movement.

For another sad example of how boundless stupidity on the right now feeds corporations, look to Dick Armey, the man behind Freedom Works (the money behind the Tea Party). His organization orchestrated a decidedly anti-intellectual campaign against healthcare reform, where facts were surpassed by "Obama is going to pull the plug on your Grandmother" lunacy. You can be sure the arguments Freedom Works propagates have everything to do with Dick Armey's lucrative ties to the health insurance industry.

So, for likely the first and last time, I agree with Sarah Palin -- the vitriol in American politics today is hardly unusual -- and given the scope of problems we face, and the level of disagreement, that passion is entirely appropriate. However, fervor shouldn't replace facts -- passion is no substitute for pragmatism.

And absolutely none of our problems will be solved with stupidity.