Report: Shooter opens fire on GOP congressmen at baseball practice - Sensationalist Headlines

You guys are aware that the 2nd amendment was essentially made for this purpose, right? I mean yeah, some crazy guy deciding to shoot up people for political reasons is pretty retarded, but we kept this in our constitution so it's no surprise. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52359734]Imagine thinking that violence is the solution while living in a country where you get to vote for a new leaders in 2-4 years, totally changing the trajectory of the country.[/QUOTE] We did vote for a candidate by 3 million votes, but...

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52359822]You guys are aware that the 2nd amendment was essentially made for this purpose, right? I mean yeah, some crazy guy deciding to shoot up people for political reasons is pretty retarded, but we kept this in our constitution so it's no surprise. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] We did vote for a candidate by 3 million votes, but...[/QUOTE] That's not what the second amendment means.

This growing trend of political violence worries me deeply. If the economy fucks up I feel like it'll only be a matter of time until these people try to fight eachother.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52359889]That's not what the second amendment means.[/QUOTE] Uh... It says that we should be given the right to bear arms for the security of a free state. So yes, it does? It's incredibly difficult to justify revolutions in modern time, since the government is so large, but don't pretend that people fighting back against people they feel are oppressing them is not in line with the vision of the amendment

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52359914]Uh... It says that we should be given the right to bear arms for the security of a free state. So yes, it does? It's incredibly difficult to justify revolutions in modern time, since the government is so large, but don't pretend that people fighting back against people they feel are oppressing them is not in line with the vision of the amendment[/QUOTE] As I stated earlier, it's the right to bear arms against a physically oppressive government. Legislative oppression is just as bad, I'm not gonna say it's not, but it doesn't justify physical assault or attempted murder against government officials or politicians and you probably won't be able to get away with that sort of action while citing the second amendment as a justification. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] I mean if someone wants to make the attempt to do so, again as I said earlier, I ain't in a position to stop them. But I'm pretty sure, second amendment or otherwise, you're gonna go to jail.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52359933]As I stated earlier, it's the right to bear arms against a physically oppressive government. Legislative oppression is just as bad, I'm not gonna say it's not, but it doesn't justify physical assault or attempted murder against government officials or politicians and you probably won't be able to get away with that sort of action while citing the second amendment as a justification. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] I mean if someone wants to make the attempt to do so, again as I said earlier, I ain't in a position to stop them. But I'm pretty sure, second amendment or otherwise, you're gonna go to jail.[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree with you, but that's part of the problem: we have only been able to fight back through a system that is ostensibly broken and skewed to benefit those already in power. I don't think anyone should resort to violence but it's not hard to see why people out there would be getting desperate, while I don't condone these types of actions I do at least think it could lead to a real realization that people are sick and tired of this corruption.

[QUOTE=Tacticallamb;52359952]Yeah I agree with you, but that's part of the problem: we have only been able to fight back through a system that is ostensibly broken and skewed to benefit those already in power. I don't think anyone should resort to violence but it's not hard to see why people out there would be getting desperate, while I don't condone these types of actions I do at least think it could lead to a real realization that people are sick and tired of this corruption.[/QUOTE] No yeah I'm sick and tired of it too, don't worry. I just don't wanna encourage people to start getting violent under the assumption that the second amendment is gonna protect them.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52359960]No yeah I'm sick and tired of it too, don't worry. I just don't wanna encourage people to start getting violent under the assumption that the second amendment is gonna protect them.[/QUOTE] Practically speaking, the Second Amendment isn't meant to protect anyone [I]if[/I] an armed revolution were to occur, since you'd be going against the government and they'd roast your ass anyway. It's just there to make sure that armed revolution is an available option should the government become so oppressive that no other options are viable.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;52359506]if Trump had been consistent with his promises...[/QUOTE] ...he wouldn't have become president. And now you're stuck with the rest of the world watching a coin flip happen you told us would land on both sides when it was convenient to do so.

[QUOTE=Foogooman;52359102]I'm not condoning the shooters particular actions by the way, I'm just saying that I'd be lying if I wasn't a little bit happy about the message it sends to the other members of congress.[/QUOTE] in another context: "I'm not condoning the actions of Jo Cox's assassin but I'm just saying that I'd be lying if I wasn't a little bit happy about the message it sends to the other members of Parliment." You realize that political violence isn't okay when it's against someone that you dont like?

[QUOTE=Pascall;52359933]As I stated earlier, it's the right to bear arms against a physically oppressive government. Legislative oppression is just as bad, I'm not gonna say it's not, but it doesn't justify physical assault or attempted murder against government officials or politicians and you probably won't be able to get away with that sort of action while citing the second amendment as a justification. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] I mean if someone wants to make the attempt to do so, again as I said earlier, I ain't in a position to stop them. But I'm pretty sure, second amendment or otherwise, you're gonna go to jail.[/QUOTE] Where does the 2nd amendment specify a physical oppressive government? I'm not condoning this guys horrible actions but this is pretty much the 2nd amendment at work. We elected somebody else by 3 million votes, our representatives are almost openly working to impede the ability of our nation to carry out justice, and realistically we have no recourse in our political system. People always drone on about electing different officials years down the line, but what about after they've been elected? We constantly elect new leaders that then have what amounts to immunity and they immediately turn and work against the people's interests.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neCW9RwwH6g[/media] When you have had politicians spouting this divisise, violent rhetoric, it doesn't surprise me when people start to act out

[QUOTE=srobins;52360055]Where does the 2nd amendment specify a physical oppressive government? I'm not condoning this guys horrible actions but this is pretty much the 2nd amendment at work. We elected somebody else by 3 million votes, our representatives are almost openly working to impede the ability of our nation to carry out justice, and realistically we have no recourse in our political system. People always drone on about electing different officials years down the line, but what about after they've been elected? We constantly elect new leaders that then have what amounts to immunity and they immediately turn and work against the people's interests.[/QUOTE] It doesn't specify, but like I said earlier, it won't be a valid justification for assault, attempted murder, or murder. It won't make these actions legal or defensible. When you start talking about revolution and things of that like, you have to remember that the law isn't going to be on your side just because the second amendment says you have the right to use weapons against an oppressive government. A judge is gonna say you killed a dude while he was at a baseball game and send you to prison. I mean if that possibility doesn't deter you then by all means but it's extremely naive to believe that you won't be punished, possibly for life, if you try to take it that route.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52360124]It doesn't specify, but like I said earlier, it won't be a valid justification for assault, attempted murder, or murder. It won't make these actions legal or defensible. When you start talking about revolution and things of that like, you have to remember that the law isn't going to be on your side just because the second amendment says you have the right to use weapons against an oppressive government. A judge is gonna say you killed a dude while he was at a baseball game and send you to prison. I mean if that possibility doesn't deter you then by all means but it's extremely naive to believe that you won't be punished, possibly for life, if you try to take it that route.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, I definitely don't think it's a legal defense or anything. As soon as you take on the role of a revolutionary you're by definition outside of the law. You can't expect the legal system you intend to bypass and overthrow to cater to your cause, that's for sure.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52358968][media]https://twitter.com/AG_Conservative/status/874964471051157505[/media][/QUOTE] I don't understand people asking for gun control in response to shit like this, criminals are going to get guns even if you block legal channels. like wanting gun control is ok but using the latest tragedy to shit post about how bad guns are doesn't really work, it'd likely have happened either way.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;52359092]I figured it was only a matter of time before this became so outrageous that citizens of the USA would start turning deadly violent against government officials. And I honestly can't blame them. What else are we to do? We have no voice, we're being shit on left and right, Money is being put before anything else, and it's reaching a tipping point. It's probably only going to get worse the longer the government continues this way. I mean just look at your situation. Why wouldn't you be a little happy about it. I would be, too, if I was in your shoes. It's fucking shitty but damn, the people are only going to take so much and especially now with the government trying to pass legislation that will either kill or put people in debt and squalor[/QUOTE] So it begins...

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;52360108][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neCW9RwwH6g[/media] When you have had politicians spouting this divisise, violent rhetoric, it doesn't surprise me when people start to act out[/QUOTE] If we're being brutally honest, I feel like this is the kind of comment that would completely infuriate me if the tables were turned. If a bunch of Democrats got shot by Tea Party crazies under the Obama administration, and later that night Sean Hannity went on the air blaming it all on Obama's "divisive rhetoric" etc., we would all lose our collective minds. So I guess I don't know what it means when I read a comment like this and don't immediately disagree with it. You're definitely right in a way, because Trump's insane rhetoric has ratcheted up political tensions to a near catastrophic level, and violence on both sides is bound to break out occasionally, but at the same, plenty of people listen to Trump's rhetoric and don't suddenly go out and shoot people. Violent behavior like this isn't normal, and the shooter is ultimately responsible for his own actions - not Donald Trump. This is certainly an interesting way to come to grips with my implicit bias.

[QUOTE=mcharest;52360283]If we're being brutally honest, I feel like this is the kind of comment that would completely infuriate me if the tables were turned. If a bunch of Democrats got shot by Tea Party crazies under the Obama administration, and later that night Sean Hannity went on the air blaming it all on Obama's divisive rhetoric etc., we would all lose our collective minds. So I guess I don't know what it means when I read a comment like this and don't immediately disagree with it. You're definitely right in a way, because Trump's insane rhetoric has ratcheted up political tensions to a near catastrophic level, and violence on both sides is bound to break out occasionally, but at the same, plenty of people listen to Trump's rhetoric and don't suddenly go out and shoot people. Violent behavior like this isn't normal, and the shooter is ultimately responsible for his own actions - not Donald Trump. This is certainly an interesting way to come to grips with my implicit bias.[/QUOTE] Donald Trump literally told his supporters to violently assault others and that he would "pay their legal bills" if they got in trouble. No other President has done that. No other candidate has done that. This is unprecedented. Trump is, simply put, garbage.

I agree, it's despicable. I'm not saying Trump doesn't have a role in this, but ultimately a person is responsible for their own actions, particularly when there are other co-morbid factors involved such as mental illness.

mcharest, the difference is that Obama never really used such divisive rhetoric, while Trump has done nithing but that.

[QUOTE=Popularvote;52360368]mcharest, the difference is that Obama never really used such divisive rhetoric, while Trump has done nithing but that.[/QUOTE] Yes, I understand that. Ultimately I'm just trying to say this: as much as I despise Trump, and while I understand the role his rhetoric has played in escalating political tensions, we also need to hold individuals accountable for their behavior and acknowledge that no one [I]makes[/I] someone do these things; they do them of their own accord, usually due to a combination of factors. Otherwise, we could find ourselves on a slippery slope and sooner or later end up being unable to attribute fault for these kinds of events in a sober and objective way, because everybody is trying to shovel blame onto everyone else. The shooter had a choice: He could choose to fight Trump the smart way, i.e. through nonviolent political activism, or he could go out and start shooting people - literally the one thing that was 100% guaranteed to not only not work, but also make things considerably worse. He chose poorly.

If we are still discussing the second amendment, this is a statement by Mo Brooks who was on the scene and gave first aid: I think he did a pretty good job of explaining his thoughts. [media]https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/874995269192089600/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fcorner%2F448631%2Fimmediate-aftermath-congressional-shooting-rep-mo-brooks-offers-spectacular-answer-gun[/media]

[QUOTE=geel9;52360293]Donald Trump literally told his supporters to violently assault others and that he would "pay their legal bills" if they got in trouble. No other President has done that. No other candidate has done that. This is unprecedented. Trump is, simply put, garbage.[/QUOTE] By "others" you mean people throwing things during a speech.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52360737]By "others" you mean people throwing things during a speech.[/QUOTE] You say this as if it's meant to change the fact that the President encouraged his supporters to violently assault someone (as opposed to, say, having security do so) -- and then [i]offered to pay their legal bills[/i]. It's almost as if he knew that the justice system would frown upon that violence...

I think violence will get worse in this country. It escalates. Trump supporters attack brown people after his election, Bernie supporter tries to kill a congressman, etc. Personally, I think the rhetoric of people is what's leading to this. The president is not only helping to create an atmosphere which creates this kind of violence but also almost even encouraging it (at some times, straight up encouraging violence against his political opponents). I think we need to have a cool head about things, and return to the center. People are too stratified and too easily accept violence as an answer to politics. We're not at the point yet where violence is necessary. [editline]14th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zombinie;52360595]If we are still discussing the second amendment, this is a statement by Mo Brooks who was on the scene and gave first aid: I think he did a pretty good job of explaining his thoughts. [media]https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/874995269192089600/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fcorner%2F448631%2Fimmediate-aftermath-congressional-shooting-rep-mo-brooks-offers-spectacular-answer-gun[/media][/QUOTE] I hope he took at least a quick glance at those NRA "donation" checks and thought to himself "is it worth it?" before shamelessly defending the interests of gigantic corporations against even his own personal safety.

I don't understand the argument that Scalise had it coming thanks to the healthcare bill he wants to pass. Shooting him doesn't invalidate the bill and it probably strengthens it.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52360860] I hope he took at least a quick glance at those NRA "donation" checks and thought to himself "is it worth it?" before shamelessly defending the interests of gigantic corporations against even his own personal safety.[/QUOTE] If you think corruption is the only reason behind his statement then you're thoroughly misguided.

[QUOTE=geel9;52360748]You say this as if it's meant to change the fact that the President encouraged his supporters to violently assault someone (as opposed to, say, having security do so) -- and then [i]offered to pay their legal bills[/i]. It's almost as if he knew that the justice system would frown upon that violence...[/QUOTE] I don't agree with the statement, but it does change the context to say that he made a comment about punching people after they already did something violent, and saying he told them to just attack people in general.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52360860] I hope he took at least a quick glance at those NRA "donation" checks and thought to himself "is it worth it?" before shamelessly defending the interests of gigantic corporations against even his own personal safety.[/QUOTE] I think he's being actually really reasonable about it No you shouldn't let stupid shit like this change your decision on gun control because it absolutely would and could happen otherwise

[QUOTE=J!NX;52360247]I don't understand people asking for gun control in response to shit like this, criminals are going to get guns even if you block legal channels.[/QUOTE] I don't really get this argument that it's "not worth bothering with gun control because criminals would just get guns anyway". What if we applied that to other laws? Should we not bother with laws against drunk driving? I mean alcohol is [B]everywhere[/B] and drunk driving is just bound to happen, so why bother. Murder! Homicides happen all the time, criminals would do it anyway so why bother trying to enforce anything. You get the idea. This is probably a really unpopular position around here right now but I don't think gun control is the impossibility that everyone says it is. To my knowledge, America isn't that different when it comes to guns, except for a small minority. Most people own one or two guns but there is a niche of gun owners who own way way more. I feel like this small minority rules the NRA and has a undue effect on public policy because of that. I also think too often gun control is framed as a "take away my guns" and it should not be that. Last I checked most Americans supported things like ending private gun show loopholes and limiting magazine sizes. And since guns aren't going anywhere, there should perhaps be a federal standardization of concealed carry permits, so no matter what state that you hail from, you should be informed how to use your gun. Everyone cites the assault weapon ban that Clinton signed as a prime example of gun control but the conversation can and should be broader than just banning things.