I can't believe how much of this thread is spent talking about guns rather than a man who chose to target active members of government based purely on political party, the reaction is so predictable at this point. What is even more predictable is the fact that a different set of excuses would be given had the perpetrator used a bomb, knife or ran someone over with a van. Cover your eyes and ears to shield yourself from the mean Republican Tweets and hateful words................ Wear a bullet proof vest to shield yourself from the Democrats. The armor requirements vary just slightly based on which political party you come into contact with.
15 Times Celebrities Envisioned Violence Against Trump and the GOP http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...nvisioned-violence-against-trump-and-the-gop/ 1. Kathy Griffin ‘Beheads’ Trump in Graphic Photo 2. Madonna – “I’ve thought a lot about blowing up the White House." 3. Snoop Dogg “Shoots” Trump in the Head in Music Video 4. Robert De Niro: “I’d Like to Punch Him in the Face” 5. Joss Whedon: “I Want a Rhino to F*ck Paul Ryan to Death” 6. Shakespeare in the Park Stabs ‘Trump’ to Death in Performance of ‘Julius Caesar’ 7. David Simon: “Pick Up a G*ddamn Brick” if Trump Fires Robert Mueller 8. Mickey Rourke Threatens to Beat Trump with Baseball Bat: “He Can Suck My F*cking D*ck” 9. Actress Lea DeLaria Threatens to ‘Take Out’ Republicans and Independents with Baseball Bat after Trump Win 10. Rapper YG Threatens Trump with “F*ck Donald Trump” Song 11. Marilyn Manson Kills ‘Trump’ in Music Video 12. Rapper Everlast Warns Trump: “I Will Punch You in Your F*cking Face” 13. Larry Wilmore Jokes About Suffocating Trump with ‘Pillow They Used to Kill Scalia’ 14. Stephen Colbert’s Late Show Puts Stephen Miller’s Head on a Spike 15. Sarah Silverman Suggests Military Could Help Overthrow Trump
This shooting is just dripping with ironey. A far, far left nutter, someone who would likely have been supportive of a very restrictive gun law, gets himself a weapon and launches a one man assault on government. Fascists are like that. Guns for them, not for you, just like everything else. Do as they say, not as they do.
More fake news from the new york times. Why the Hell Did the New York Times Lie About the Gabby Giffords Murders? by John Ziegler | 6:42 am, June 15th, 2017 In the wake of the horrendous attempted massacre of the Republican Congressional Baseball team on Wednesday morning, it was somewhat impressive that most people in politics and the news media handled themselves pretty darn well. The focus of attention seemed to be in the right place, and the measured but defiant tone of the response appeared to be nearly pitch perfect. Of course, like most conservatives, I am rather confident that if the assailant had been vocally PRO-Trump and had purposely singled out Democrats for potential mass murder, the reaction, especially within the news media, would have been VERY different. Among other things, Trump himself would have been immediately been directly blamed and old videos of violence had his campaign rallies would have been played (other than on Fox News) on a near perpetual loop. But because, in real life, this shooter was clearly an ANTI-Trump liberal who went out of his way to let it be known that he was targeting Republicans, the incentives for the mainstream news media are not in line with them having a major freak-out here. Instead, it is all about NOT making this about politics and instead having us come together as a country to condemn this heinous act of senseless violence. Gee, how convenient. While the inherent hypocrisy of the media reaction to this horrendous event was galling, it was at least possible to take solace in the fact that, like a broken clock, the news media was finally getting this one mostly right. That was, until the editorial board of The New York Times effectively declared, “Hold my beer.” In what reads like an over-the-top parody of a fringe left-wing website, the newspaper of record took an editorial position based on two complete and total falsehoods. The first was this about the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords: …In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. To say that “the link to political incitement was clear” and then connect it to Palin is not just untrue. It is an already proven lie in every possible way. I remember that event exceedingly well because at the time was I was still in very close contact with Palin after having produced a documentary film about the media coverage of the 2008 election. Within minutes of hearing about the shooting, I emailed Sarah and her husband Todd to warn them that the media would try to blame her for this. Todd immediately responded with an ominously prescient, “We know.” So while Palin was indeed nonsensically impugned at the time by a news media which saw opportunities to criticize her like a child sees their favorite candy, the entire concept was quickly and easily debunked. Blaming her now is like trying to claim the fully exonerated Richard Jewell really was responsible for the 1996 Olympic bombing. Laughner was mentally ill, by all accounts a liberal who was not even politically motivated, and became fixated with Giffords well before anyone ever even heard of Sarah Palin, or some “targeted” congressional districts on a website there is no chance he ever visited. Palin had as much to do with provoking that tragedy as my five-year old daughter did. So why did The Times still decide to make this discredited charge, even on a day which was mostly devoted to NOT assessing political blame? Well, the easy answer is that their editorial board is made up entirely of liberals and that there was no one in the room to say, “Hey, wait a minute guys, this part here is bullcrap!” But I also think that this partly came about because of the incredible power of a narrative that the media likes, in comparison to one from which they don’t benefit. It is almost as if, because they loved the “Palin caused the Giffords shooting” fairytale so much that, even after realizing it was false, the information was discarded from their memory banks because it was just too uncomfortable for them to retain. But The Times didn’t stop there. When referring to the events of yesterday, they farted out this gem: “though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.” Seriously?! The shooter from Wednesday could not have made it clearer why he did this if he had taken out a full page ad in The Times beforehand explaining how his hatred of Republicans was motivating him to kill innocent people. As for signs of “incitement,” apparently The Times is under the delusion that their fellow high-minded liberals never engage in the kind dangerous “hate speech” for which they routinely criticize those on the right. I guess the story of Kathy Griffin recently holding Trump’s bloody decapitated head just didn’t get enough news coverage for anyone at The Times to notice. I can’t seem to find any record of Palin doing the same kind of thing with Barack Obama. I must have just missed it, or maybe I forgot about it because it didn’t fit with my political agenda. When the news media gets frustrated about why no one right of center will believe their reporting about how horrible/dangerous President Trump (you know, the same guy they let be the GOP nominee because it was good for business and, they thought, for Hillary Clinton) is, they need not look any further than this episode to understand why this is the case.
Could you imagine the conservative side spewing such hate against Obama? And for any who did, the consequences?
After Scalise shooting, what if Republicans and Democrats played on the same team?: Letter 2 Updated on June 15, 2017 at 10:27 AMPosted on June 15, 2017 at 9:13 AM BY LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, NOLA.COM The Times-Picayune The horrific, violent act against my congressman, U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, and others at the ballpark in Virginia reverberates around the world and penetrates the collective consciousness close to home quite poignantly. Perhaps through the shock, anger and grief there will be some silver lining that emerges, although it would be speculation as to exactly what that would be. In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers are filled with hope for full recovery of those injured and gratitude for the lives spared as well as those who leaped into action to stop the violence and the bleeding. Being the eternal optimist, I have fixated on a question that my wife posed as we watched the news unfolding on TV: "Why are the two congressional teams divided along party lines?" Steve Scalise knows how to disagree without losing friends: Editorial Rep. Scalise has been able to make friends on both sides of the political aisle as he moved up from the Louisiana Legislature to Congress and a top leadership role. My suggestion to our Louisiana delegation would be for them to propose that beginning next year the two teams would have to be composed of nearly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats in honor of Congressman Scalise. So many of us who criticize the bipartisan and divisive nature of the current Congress would love to see some substantive semblance of congeniality in playing together as well as working together. Sports by nature are competitive, and we all have learned the benefits of teamwork and healthy competition. Why not have two teams composed of each party who spend the summer mornings practicing with each other in preparation for the annual big game instead of dividing the teams along party lines for yet another punishing victory over those across the aisle? Wouldn't that make for a truly all-star game! Tom Anderson Hammond
According to multiple articles today Congressmen are not allowed to carry guns in D.C. Now Congressmen are demanding they be allowed to carry. GOP Lawmaker Wants to Let Members of Congress Carry Guns http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/15/barry-loudermilk-let-congressmen-carry-guns-scalise-shooting A Republican congressman is calling for legislation to allow members of Congress to carry firearms after a shooter this week targeted GOP lawmakers. "We aren't any more special than anybody else, but we're targets," Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) said. "This is exactly why there's a lot of fear of doing town halls at this point." A Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on GOP congressmen playing baseball in Alexandria, Va., Wednesday morning. He was gunned down by police, but not before he injured five, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Loudermilk was on the field when the gunman started spraying dozens of bullets, but he emerged unhurt. He remarked that the District of Columbia does not recognize firearms permits from other states, which is a problem for members of Congress. "If this had happened in Georgia, he wouldn't have gotten too far," the Georgia congressman stated. (More at above url)