Some people did say that.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...gislation.html
Do you ever pop off about stuff you don't know very much about?http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/...b-sites-banned"This is not a knee jerk reaction, Brady said. "This legislation makes it illegal to place crosshairs on a Congressman's district."
A Republican supporting gun control. That's funny. Saving face tbh. Also, New York is a big gun control state and this proposal is far from restricting citizens from owning guns and using them properly and legally.
Sounds like a good idea.
Occasionally . . . but you have proven nothing here. Also, why are you offended by what I said? Do you think you're nuts?
I'm not offended. Your comment was obtuse, is all.
How so? Sarcastic, maybe . . . not obtuse.
You think need we government to police "extreme" political speech. Obviously.
Both your main points were mistaken. People do blame Sarah Palin for influencing the shooter, and the fear of congressional overreaction seems to be well founded.
I wouldn't go that far, honestly, but it is getting out of control considering the instability of the audience. Public officials and those running for public office should be held accountable for their irresponsibility.
I there is a misunderstanding in context. I haven't seen anyone directly blame Palin for the shooting and I wouldn't condone that. She should be held accountable for putting forth an irresponsible campaign though.
Afraid of free speech? Grow a set or call 911.Held accountable how?
Social disapprobation is one thing, strengthening the hand of government to quash political speech is another.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-12-2011 at 10:54 AM. Reason: wrote 9/11 in place of 911
Grow a set? Grow up. It's not a free speech issue. I'm talking about inciting unstable people and doing it knowingly.
Campaign funding restrictions.
If restraining speech that "might incite unstable people" isn't a free speech issue, I don't know what is.
Relates to this topic how?
What doesn't incite unstable people?
One wonders.
ohmwrecker: do you get MSNBC? they've been ready to string up Palin for days...right out of the gate. Straight up, directly, laying blame for this at her feet. Beck, Limbaugh too. it's been rediculous.
That doesn't mean people who know better should do it.
To use the old example:
If someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre . . . the unstable will panic and knock people over to get out. A reasonable person will look for calmly, but quickly look for evidence of an actual fire and strategize the fastest, safest way out after establishing that there is indeed a fire.
I read. I don't watch TV news.
As a suitable form of making public servants more responsible.
So any speech a mentally unstable person might foreseeably take amiss, should be proscribed?
How does it relate to speech that irresponsibly "incites" the mentally ill? It's not intuitively clear to me.
Don't the voters sort this one out at the ballot box? Why do we need a federal remedy for loose cannons?
When you, as a speaker, are looking out onto a throng of rabid, hateful people holding signs depicting our president with a target on his head or a Hitler mustache scrawled on his upper lip with misspelled accusations of conflicting political ideologies on homemade signs . . . it might not be responsible to tell these people that the "other guy" wants to take away their guns and then draw them a map with target points on it.
Is that clear enough?
Last edited by ohmwrecker; 01-12-2011 at 11:17 AM.
You're inciting violence!
signs didn't treat bush very well, either.
but then again, he manufactured reasons for war.
Well it's simple. Target the signs!
I don't recall any politicians subtly suggesting that Bush should be assassinated.
what politicians have subtly suggested that obama be assassinated?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote