Obama in Tucson: ‘We cannot use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other’
I haven’t had a chance yet to see how my more conservative brethren responded to President Obama’s speech last night in Tucson, but it’s hard to see how anyone could respond to it less than positively. (The rather boisterous audience — perhaps because it was on a college campus? — was another matter.)
The president did not seek to score political points; he argued explicitly that it was wrong to blame the tragedy on anything but the “thoughts (that) lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.” He spoke as the president of all Americans, rather than the leader of some. And yet he did not shrink from the central issue of civility and our responsibilities to each other as Americans “at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do.”
Here’s the core of the speech, which is available in its entirety here:
You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations –- to try and pose some order on the chaos and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health system. And much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.
Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “When I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.
For the truth is none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do. That we cannot do.
As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.
… And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.
We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.
They believed — they believed, and I believe that we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved life here –- they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that’s entirely up to us.
And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.
That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed.
Imagine — imagine for a moment, here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that some day she, too, might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council. She saw public service as something exciting and hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.
I want to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it. I want America to be as good as she imagined it. All of us -– we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
399 comments Add your comment
Paul
January 13th, 2011
10:57 am
tommy 10:47
“Hey dumb liberals, the words “free healthcare” aren’t in the constitution either.”
Do you have a cite for anyone who said healthcare should be free? Or that the health care reforms resulted in ‘free’ care?
Aside from conservatives?
Lord Help Us
January 13th, 2011
10:57 am
‘Slash government to 20% of its current size and we can go back to getting along.’
Add up the expansion of gov’t under President Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and you might have your 20%.
Ironic, ain’t it?
Adam
January 13th, 2011
10:58 am
So I have to ask everyone who’s still throwing around names and things like socialism, evil, marxism, etc:
What exactly is wrong with debating the issues without calling each other names and dragging someone through the mud in order to emphasize the point?
Doggone/GA
January 13th, 2011
10:58 am
“Liberals can view the constitution as a “living breathing document” but when we rightly point something out in it we’re “wrong”.”
Only when you ARE wrong.
tommy t tone
January 13th, 2011
10:58 am
All of you people STILL demonizing Obama, saying he rammed things down people’s throats and whatnot
————————
A left-wing whacko shoting up a supermarket changes this in what way?
Obama DID and will continue to SHOVE illegal bills and laws down our throats.
He’ll be voted out next year though, don’t worry. Then you libs can finally move to Canada like you always threaten to.
USinUK
January 13th, 2011
10:58 am
sorry … just got off the phone and am catching up … but, couldn’t let this one slide;
‘But Illinois has not seen many Repubs lately, has it?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03illinois.html
barking frog
January 13th, 2011
10:58 am
BTW Keep, The constitution is our protection from
government and tyrranny.
Soothsayer
January 13th, 2011
10:59 am
The total sum, over $700 billion per year, is the sacred cost of the USMilitary. It includes hundreds of overseas bases, lavish embassies, and endless weapon systems, of types conventional, nuclear, and drones. The United States spends as much on annual military investment as the rest of the world combined, according to the Stockholm Intl Peace Research Institute. One must wonder if the wars are to produce enemies. The United States maintains troops at more than 560 bases and other sites abroad. The outsized yawning Defense spending is a primary cause for USGovt insolvency. It has a staggering deficit impact on the budget and the negative international image of the nation. Watch the unfolding events as the USGovt and USCongress grapple with spending cuts. They will avoid Pentagon and defense budget cuts with fierce opposition. This is a key part of the Fascist Business Model, as sacred as Wall Street largesse.
md
January 13th, 2011
10:59 am
“md…the word “tyranny”? where is it? If not, your claim is a reprehensible as Frogs”
Maybe I’m giving you more credit than necessary……….it is called deductive reasoning…….
“being necessary to the security of a free State”
Last I checked, tyranny had nothing to do whatsoever with being free………………..
Paul
January 13th, 2011
11:00 am
tommy
You ever post under the name “Harry”?
Your lunch at Golden Corral awaits -
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
11:00 am
tommy t – yo need Jess. AND lots of psychiatric help. AND a prescription for some good drgs.
frog: I’m not advocating anything. In the Civil War Lincoln nullified the Constitution by violently disallowing the several states rights that were reserved to them. Should he have refrained from violence? The lawyers seem to think so. Ballots didn’t work. Bullets did.
Oh please!! Don’t start rewriting history!! WHERE in the Constitution does it say that the states had the right to keep and own slaves? Where in the constitution did it say that new states being newly formed, (as they were back then); must become slaves states? And BTW DID the bullets work in the south’s efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of the united states? Did we not learn ANYTHING from the Civil War?
tommy t tone
January 13th, 2011
11:00 am
What exactly is wrong with debating the issues without calling each other names and dragging someone through the mud in order to emphasize the point?
——————————
Because there is no “debate”. Democrats won’t be allowed to ruin this country. The past election proved that the people rebuke socialism. The presidential election next year will prove it even further.
Hopefully the “lawmakers” in washingtoon learned their lesson this past saturday and will tone down THEIR rhetoric and sneering down on the people….the worthless Washington elites are shaking in their boots (that WE paid for) and I love it.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:00 am
You keep dancing Frog but you wont answer the question (and neither will md or @@). Does Tommy have the right to take violent action if he believes the current President is Hitler or this government is tyrannical?
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
11:01 am
BTW tommy t – I bet your IP address has been mysteriously given to the FBI. Free speech bites you in the azz again……………….
Adam
January 13th, 2011
11:02 am
Obama DID and will continue to SHOVE illegal bills and laws down our throats.
I see you don’t have much faith in your newly elected House of Representatives…
@@
January 13th, 2011
11:02 am
Keep:
True! But the American psyche was founded on the principles of individual freedom. When our government points the ship back to Europe, it’s the American people who need to right it or the original journey was for naught.
USinUK
January 13th, 2011
11:03 am
‘Do not blame those who will REACT.”
wow. so, basically, we should just give anyone who opens fire and kills 9-year olds a pass because they REACTED.
got it.
thanks for clearing that up.
Adam
January 13th, 2011
11:03 am
Because there is no “debate”.
Right. Everything must be your way or no way. Am I right? YOU are the problem, not Obama, and not “socialism.”
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:04 am
@@ — no problem with your rhetoric. But does that right include the right to violent action. Does Tommy has a constitutional right to start shooting because he believes your words are happening and the “ship” is pointed back to Europe?
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
11:04 am
He’ll be voted out next year though, don’t worry. Then you libs can finally move to Canada like you always threaten to.
And we’re taking our “elitist” tax dollars with us!!! NOW see if you can balance the budget off of those tea party dollars OR from big business.
larry
January 13th, 2011
11:04 am
Maybe Jenny forgot to tell tommy t tone that there is no such thing as free healthcare.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:06 am
Larry…give him a call and let him know. You know the number.
josef nix
January 13th, 2011
11:06 am
PAUL
“Do you have a cite for anyone who said healthcare should be free?”
EOI here, but, yes, I did…
Adam
January 13th, 2011
11:07 am
Keep up: The right to bear arms is not a right to start shooting.
md
January 13th, 2011
11:08 am
“Or that the health care reforms resulted in ‘free’ care?”
Another of those trick questions? No such thing as “free”, but some won’t being paying for it.
retired early
January 13th, 2011
11:08 am
One has to wonder how many on this blog this morning did not hear Obama’s speech, yet criticize it non stop, nonetheless. These people’s hatred of him would guarantee they did not watch it. That is pretty indicative of their unwarranted rants calling him bozo etc. Never let facts get in your way people…that fire that burns inside you… called hate, sure feels good…don’t it… That rage at the man…how dare that uppity black man run MY country…cant ‘t let it happen…I don’t want to know the truth…it just gets in the way of my sweet hatred…..Sound familiar boys.
FYI
Northern Black’s IQ scores are, on average, higher than Southern Whites….yes this is a fact…look it up . Explains a lot to me…reading these civil war retreads comments…and no…I am white.
Southern Comfort (B.P.O.I.B.W.)
January 13th, 2011
11:09 am
I don’t agree. A few are doing a good job of smelling like garbage, but that doesn’t mean ALL of us are garbage.
True, but you should know as a dog afficionado that, “When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” It’s hard to have a partisan argument if there’s only one side yammering. Let them talk until their faces turn blue. I’m trying to keep my promise to myself and stay out of the partisan BS.
larry
January 13th, 2011
11:09 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkpGQUflBwU
Paul
January 13th, 2011
11:09 am
Lessee, tommy
makes comments without source references
makes questionable attributes to others
rails about socialism, but can’t/won’t define it, analyze it
demonstrates an interesting pathology of feeding off attention, particularly when it’s in response to outrageous comments.
likes to pretend control, speaking of what others will be allowed to do.
Yup, Mr. Callahan has returned.
Doggone/GA
January 13th, 2011
11:09 am
“The right to bear arms is not a right to start shooting”
And as has been pointed out in the past, the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms…it says nothing about ammunition!
Doggone/GA
January 13th, 2011
11:10 am
“True, but you should know as a dog afficionado that, “When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.””
And I also know that if you fight fleas effectively, you can get rid of them.
md
January 13th, 2011
11:11 am
“Does Tommy have the right to take violent action if he believes the current President is Hitler or this government is tyrannical?”
Depends on how many “Tommy’s” are out there………as an individual….no, as a collective……????
Where does freedom stop and tyranny begin……….that is the question.
Paul
January 13th, 2011
11:11 am
josef
You and a few others. But we know in the context of the discussion no one was speaking of no one, anywhere, paid. Or that no one who receives will ever pay.
’sides which, I was referring to those who actually pass the laws or are in the inner policy-making circles.
@@
January 13th, 2011
11:11 am
Keep:
I’m not following along too closely. Are you talking about tommy t tone? I believe he said Obama would be voted out. You equate voting to violence?
Doggone/GA
January 13th, 2011
11:11 am
“Yup, Mr. Callahan has returned.”
Wasn’t there once a poster here that called himself “tommy two tone” that preached violence…also?
Southern Comfort (B.P.O.I.B.W.)
January 13th, 2011
11:12 am
And I also know that if you fight fleas effectively, you can get rid of them.
Touche!!!
Paul
January 13th, 2011
11:15 am
md
“Another of those trick questions? No such thing as “free”, but some won’t being paying for it.”
Wasn’t trying to be tricky, just defining terms.
The ’some won’t be paying for it” is true in many, many, many areas, either completely or in part. Whether it’s people of modest means with kids receiving public education, or someone who pays insurance for decades, never collects but watches many others collect, to those who don’t drive watching roads built, to vegetarians paying for meat inspections… goes on and on and on. It’s just the nature of a society.
kayaker 71
January 13th, 2011
11:15 am
USinUK,
The one shining light in an otherwise darkened room. While I will admit that there are more than a few R congressmen/women in the state, the key positions, ie, Governor, mayor, school board, city council and other decision making offices, not to mention the late Governor and his lovely wife, were all Democrats. One of the most corrupt city and state governments in the US. And to add insult to injury, Bozo has a new chief of staff, a venerated member of the Daley family of Chicago, that well respected, always honest and trustworthy civil servant whose father and those before him have such a sterling record. From Rham Emmanuel to Daley. Would you expect anything else?
md
January 13th, 2011
11:15 am
“Never let facts get in your way people…that fire that burns inside you… called hate, sure feels good…don’t it… That rage at the man…how dare that uppity black man run MY country…cant ‘t let it happen…I don’t want to know the truth…it just gets in the way of my sweet hatred…..Sound familiar boys.”
Fail…………….if you are trying to appear neutral. I see none of what you suggest having been posted, therefore, are you part of the problem??
AmVet
January 13th, 2011
11:16 am
I’m trying to keep my promise to myself and stay out of the partisan BS.
You AND me, brother…
And it is, in and of itself, very freeing. As the already relatively useless words of the more irrational and strident, have even less impact.
Free like the river
Flowin’ freely through infinity
Free to be sure of
What I am and who I need not be
Free from all worries
Worries prey on oneself’s troubled mind
Freer than the clock’s hands
Tickin’ way the times
Freer than the meaning of free that man defines
Life running through me
Till I feel my father God has called
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoFYV8IOtR4
Left wing management
January 13th, 2011
11:18 am
Paul: “rails about socialism, but can’t/won’t define it, analyze it”
And best of all, he’s so naive that he fails to realize he’s defending the most indefensible form of socialism of all right here in the good ol’ US of A. Socialism for the high-roller financiers and well-placed financier-politicians and their career revolving doors and blockbuster bonuses.
You love you some Wall St pinkos don’t ya tommy boy?
josef nix
January 13th, 2011
11:19 am
Oh please!! Don’t start rewriting history!! WHERE in the Constitution does it say that the states had the right to keep and own slaves?
The closest it comes is the 3/5 Compromise and the “right” was upheld by the Supreme Court all the way up until the outbreak. This is why the 13th Amendment was necessary.
Where in the constitution did it say that new states being newly formed, (as they were back then); must become slaves states?
It did not. The Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act addressed the issue and were determined by the judicial branch to be constitutional.
And BTW DID the bullets work in the south’s efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of the united states?
The South did not seek to “overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.” It sought to seceed from that state and form its own state. At no point did the South seek to overthrow the government of United States of America. It simply determined that it was no longer a part of that legitimate government and considered itself a separate nation, the Confederate States of America.
Did we not learn ANYTHING from the Civil War?
Not much more than history is written by the winners.
Now, why am I going to this here? To make an analogy with what is going on today with the War of the Rebellion, the War for Southern Independence, the War of the Invasion, the War of Secession or the War Between the States has one serious flaw. THIS is a civil war. THAT was not. Which is why, in the long run, I believe that this is far more dangerous. This one truly is neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother.
josef nix
January 13th, 2011
11:23 am
poor job on that @ 11:19
I did not quote the sections in which I was responding to DDR’s earlier post…sorry…
barking frog
January 13th, 2011
11:23 am
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
11:00 am
————————————————–
where in the constitution are states prohibited from
leaving the union? The bullets said they cannot.
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
11:25 am
Where does freedom stop and tyranny begin……….that is the question.
How are you being “tyrannized” md? Did Obama forcibly take over the states? Did Obama set himself up as “King”? Did Obama caste out the constitution and set up his own constitution? If you answer, truthfully, NO to any of these questions, then there is no tyranny. Only hateful rhetoric, and blatant lies.
md
January 13th, 2011
11:26 am
I’d have to say that there is a parallel between the Civil War and today………2 ideologies doing battle. true, that the “sides” were already segregated for the most part, but very similar in ideology.
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
11:27 am
Morning Paul!! Happy New Year!! And WAR EAgle!! (also Roll Tide, go DAWGS!, How ’bout them Fla. Gators!? and Soooowwwwiiieeee!!)
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:28 am
@@ — you may want to go back and read….I have not said voting is violence.
md @ 11:11 — so “Depends on how many “Tommy’s” are out there………as an individual….no, as a collective……????” –
So you are saying Tommy does not have a constitutional right to act violently if he believes there is tyranny, but that some group of people (and we can argue about the number later) does have that as a constitutional right? What if Tommy percieves there is a group of people (a majority) that support him today, does he then have a constitutional right to act violently?
md
January 13th, 2011
11:30 am
“How are you being “tyrannized” md? Did Obama forcibly take over the states? Did Obama set himself up as “King”? Did Obama caste out the constitution and set up his own constitution? If you answer, truthfully, NO to any of these questions, then there is no tyranny. Only hateful rhetoric, and blatant lies.”
Deb,
You read too much into folks posts……..stop it.
I never said there was tyranny………..it is a hypothetical question.
Slow down a bit and quit answering your own questions for the folks you address them to.
It would be wise to ask the question and let them respond……you may not look as silly.
josef nix
January 13th, 2011
11:31 am
md
I disagree on the parallel…their is no geographical separation of the two “sides.” This current battle is not one ideology seeking to separate itself from the other and form its own state, but is a battle for control of the same state…that’s why I would call this a true civil war in the making…
barking frog
January 13th, 2011
11:32 am
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:00 am
You keep dancing Frog but you wont answer the question (and neither will md or @@). Does Tommy have the right to take violent action if he believes the current President is Hitler or this government is tyrannical?
————————————————————————
Tommy can do anything lawful. Otherwise there will be
consequences. Juries decide what his rights are.
md
January 13th, 2011
11:33 am
“So you are saying Tommy does not have a constitutional right to act violently if he believes there is tyranny, but that some group of people (and we can argue about the number later) does have that as a constitutional right? What if Tommy percieves there is a group of people (a majority) that support him today, does he then have a constitutional right to act violently?”
All good questions……may be why we have a court system.
But, at some point……..and I don’t know where that point is (do you), if tyranny exists, it had to “start” somewhere……….right?
Another of those “fine lines” we always hear about not crossing………………
@@
January 13th, 2011
11:34 am
Keep:
Not saying you did. I’m saying that tommy said Obama “would be VOTED out.”
A show of force?
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:36 am
Frog, you are running away. You are saying that if a group of people believes there is tyranny, the 2d amendment gives them a lawful constitutional right to act violently with deadly weapons. If Tommy holds that believe today, he may act and then its just a matter of whether he has proof for a court?
BADA BING
January 13th, 2011
11:37 am
The shooter used pot, he had a history of mental unstability, he obtained a gun. Which one, or which combination caused this tragedy? A news report from Cook Co. Illinois this week stated that their morgue held 2 people per tray. And the spokesman said that this was not the worst he had seen. Some of the dead, I am sure, were the result of drug use, illegal guns, and alcohol abuse, all of which are against the law, or regulated in some way by the Gov’t. Did being unlawful stop any of these deaths?
md
January 13th, 2011
11:38 am
Jo,
I still say both are/were a battle of 2 ideologies………if we had the same geographical segregation that existed during the civil war (north/south) today, I’d guess some would push to secede vs what we have. But I agree that what we have is different in sense of geography.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:39 am
@@ — Tommy has said this government is tyrannical. Frog, md and, I believe, you have claimed that the 2d amendment provides that if there is tyranny then violent weapons with bullets, not a ballot, are a consitutional right to be used.
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
11:40 am
Hi josef!!
josef: The closest it comes is the 3/5 Compromise and the “right” was upheld by the Supreme Court all the way up until the outbreak. This is why the 13th Amendment was necessary.
Like I said, NOT in the constitution. (BTW the The Supreme Court can and DOES reverse themselves. The Supremes are not infallible and are prone to the mores and social nuances of the times they live in.) United States had ceased slave importation and intervened militarily against the Atlantic slave trade, but had made few proposals to abolish domestic slavery, and only a small number to abolish the domestic slave trade. Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be seen as only a “War Solution” and not a final solution hence the advent of the 13th.
The South did not seek to “overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.”
By seceding or trying to they perpetrated treason and were trying to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States.
History maybe written by the winners, but there are a lot of first hand accounts that were written by the survivors of the Civil War — I’ll take their perspectives and their outlook over a watered down, revamped version that the “New” south is putting out today.
md
January 13th, 2011
11:41 am
“If Tommy holds that believe today, he may act and then its just a matter of whether he has proof for a court?”
No….it is a matter of what the courts allow………….
And those courts are controlled by the powers that be……….and then we are back to where does tyranny begin……………….
josef nix
January 13th, 2011
11:41 am
Upstairs…gun control…oughta be fun…
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:48 am
md…its not a matter of what the courts will allow. Either is it a consitutional right or not. If it is a constitutional right, then Tommy may claim he has that right, shoot an elected official, and then go to court to try to prove tyranny. You are giving the right to any nutcase to shoot first and then telling them “well okay, now you have to prove tyranny”. That is reprehensible.
There is no second amendment remedy.
barking frog
January 13th, 2011
11:48 am
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:39 am
@@ — Tommy has said this government is tyrannical. Frog, md and, I believe, you have claimed that the 2d amendment provides that if there is tyranny then violent weapons with bullets, not a ballot, are a consitutional right to be used.
———————————————————————————–
I believe you said that I said that. I believe that you believe
that violence should never be used against a government.
I said that I was thankful that the Founding Fathers did not
believe that.
josef nix
January 13th, 2011
11:49 am
DDR
Gotta run for now…
There’s the “watered down” version and the “beefed up” version…somewhere between the two…later we’ll get into the halt to the foreign slave trade and its not so idealistic origins (hint: 1810 is a key factor here..) But it was the constiution of the Confederate States of America that made the foreign slave trade unconstitutional…again, not all that idealistic in origin…
Gotta run for now…
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:53 am
Frog, and I believe your words provide a nutcase with the thought that if he believes there is tryanny, he may act and kill. The nutcase says Frog says if there is tyranny, I have a constitutional right. You continue to back away from the responsibility for your words that there is a violent remedy embodied in the 2d amendment.
And that is reprehensible and is NOT what the founding fathers intended in the 2d amendment.
Paulo977
January 13th, 2011
11:57 am
How a Brit viewed the speech
http://www.guardian
md
January 13th, 2011
12:01 pm
Keep………if you don’t think that what the courts say vs what you or I say is different, I can’t help you.
Their say carry’s a wee bit more weight.
The current powers that be interpret the rules and therefore, set the rules……….how in the world do you think tyranny even begins?????
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
12:06 pm
frog: I believe that you believe that violence should never be used against a government.
I said that I was thankful that the Founding Fathers did not believe that.
Not direction but you intimated that it did. Sorta like you tell your child, “I’m going to the mall there’s chocolate cake in the fridge, I’ll be back at 5:00.” You didn’t outright say “Don’t eat the cake” however, by NOT saying those words, you inferred that the cake could be eaten.
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
12:08 pm
The current powers that be interpret the rules and therefore, set the rules………
All rules in this country are made and upheld within the boundaries of our Constitution.
how in the world do you think tyranny even begins?????
By people who want their own way and refuse to follow the dictates of the law.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
12:12 pm
md…I understand what courts may or may not say. I am an officer of the court.
What I disagree with it the idea that there is a “second amendment remedy” in the constitution It is not a legitimate right and there is no court that would entertain an offer of proof of “tyranny” by the government as a valid defense to assassination. There is not a single case to that effect. And you are giving to the nutcases the idea that they have this right and telling them they can try to prove it in court after they act.
barking frog
January 13th, 2011
12:15 pm
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
11:53 am
———————————————————————-
The constitution provides freedoms from government
and responsibilities that go with those freedoms. You
may decide what those freedoms and responsibilities
are. Your decisions will affect your freedoms and your
responsibilities. This is a free society. You may quote
me but please refrain from speaking for me without retainer.
barking frog
January 13th, 2011
12:18 pm
DebbieDoRight
January 13th, 2011
12:06 pm
——————————————————
Once again. Please google the definition of imply and infer.
I guess King George left the kids with the cake.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
12:24 pm
again Frog you are ducking.
If you say in a speech “I believe we have a consitutional right if there is a tyrannical government to attack and kill the government leaders”, that right either exists or does not exists.
If you say that at the same times others around you are crying out “Obama is tyranny”, then have you been responsible in your speech when someone connects the two. Do you hold any responsibility or do you merely get to say “well he was a nutcase and its not my fault.”
You stated there is a consitutional right that is not stated in the 2d amendment but you dont want to take responsibility for the very direct consequences of that statement.
It is not a “constitutional right” to be subjected to proof in court of tyranny. It is not the same as a speed limit defense. It is clear there is a speed limit and a right to drive. Whether you are speeding or not is to be proved in court. There is no constitutional right to assassinate the president IF you hold a belief, but that is what you claim.
Jay
January 13th, 2011
12:45 pm
And Nichols killed people in a courthouse filled with armed cops, and later killed a federal agent who was by all accounts pretty hardcore himself and handy with a weapon.
The element of surprise is huge.
Dusty
January 13th, 2011
12:45 pm
Well, I noticed a few things here. Nothing much new.
Very few are listening to Obama or Jay. Same ol’ same ol’…
USinUK, DebbieDoRight and RedNeck all think along the same lines RedNeck under cover, of course. Few surprises with them.
I thought “Blood libel” or whatever meant something like the Hatfields & the McCoys, or street gang shootouts. Never connected it to the Jews.
Obama’s speech was good but I like LIncoln’s better. Lincoln’s had serenity. Obama’s had inspiration.
We who are free can always talk tyranny. Perhaps we should listen more to Ivory Coast, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwee. and Burma (with its later name).. People there might have a more enlightened view of tryranny and disruption…
Gun control is next. NO it isn’t. Lunch is next. Soooo long!!
md
January 13th, 2011
12:50 pm
“What I disagree with it the idea that there is a “second amendment remedy” in the constitution”
How do you think that militia is going to ensure a “free” State? By telling the tyrannical powers that be that they can’t do what they have already done?
My guess, they would have to use their weapons……..so, where is that line?
Left wing management
January 13th, 2011
1:05 pm
Jay: “And Nichols killed people in a courthouse filled with armed cops, and later killed a federal agent who was by all accounts pretty hardcore himself and handy with a weapon.
The element of surprise is huge.”
And the fact that it’s a “surprise” means what? It means there are norms of behavior in place that mitigate against outburst of violence. (Examples where this might not be the case: an open air drug market in a slum, etc.) Which means that what the gun fundamentalists are in effect doing is throwing up their hands at the possibility of having public sites where one can feel reasonably safe. Just another example of the fundamentally schizo position of conservativism – it claims to be for restoring civility and traditional values when in effect it’s just doubling down on their violation.
barking frog
January 13th, 2011
1:15 pm
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
12:24 pm
You stated there is a consitutional right that is not stated in the 2d amendment.
——————————————————————————
No I didn’t. There are many things that are not stated in the 2nd amendment,
too numerous to mention.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
1:54 pm
md…again if you state there are second amendment remedies when there is tyranny, then you have to understand where that leads. That leads to some nutcase who says, I believe there is tyranny, therefore I have a right to use violence and guns under the second amendment. You are not stating that bullets may be used in tryanny.
Thr right to resist tyranny is not to resist a lawful government voted by the ballot. The people have a right to vote for socialist, communists. muslim or catholic or whoever is “feared” that does not make tyranny. Tryanny is not following the constitition as determined by the courts and the branches of government, by not following the vote of the people.
The inherent right to resist tyranny is outside of the constitution when the constitutional rights are not being followed. When there is a breach of the contract with the people. But when people around you are screaming tyranny and you suggest hey we have a right to use guns when there is tryanny instead of saying, silly, this is not tyranny, Obama was elected and you have a vote, that is reprehensible.
The founding fathers did revolt. They did so not as a first recourse but after attempting to address their greivances, after protest and not once were they permitted to vote for their governing officials. They took a very deliberate process. The claim of “second amendment remedies” does not claim that deliberate process and suggests to the nut cases that if I think it and hear others say tryanny, I can act.
Words do have consequences. The second amendment and the constitution is not a sound bite. There is no and never will be a second amendment remedy under the constitution.
Scout
January 13th, 2011
3:05 pm
Snake Oil Salesmen are always smooth talkers.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
3:38 pm
Absolutely. Then again, sometimes snakes like to claim the real thing is snake oil when what the snakes offer is the real snake oil. I mean afterall, they are snakes.
PS – salespersons. Women are also in sales in this modern world despite some clinging to a horrendous past.
Jay
January 13th, 2011
3:46 pm
And Hoot, as to Maj. Caudill:
“People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.”
That is an obviously false claim. Are Britain, France, Japan, Canada and other countries subject to “automatic rule by the young, the strong … the exact opposite of a civilized society”? Clearly, no. The planet is full of proof to the contrary. In fact, “the exact opposite of a civilized society” would more likely be applied to countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where guns are as plentiful and unregulated as you apparently would want them to be here.
The argument, in other words, is ludicrous.
The claim that “A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly” is equally ludicrous. Muggers seem to do pretty well here in these United States, and when caught or shot are almost always caught or shot by law enforcement. And why do the countries cited above, with more severe gun restrictions, have fewer muggings.
Again, the planet is full of proof to the contrary.
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.”ruled
Scout
January 13th, 2011
4:00 pm
Keep up the good fight! :
Ah ……………………… nevermind.
However, on another point..
Below is the entire video of the Chris Matthews segment of releasing the original long-form birth certificate for Obama:
If you will watch it all carefully you will find that:
1) He says, “Why doesn’t the President “demand” that it be released.
2) He holds up someone else’s long-form (born the day before Obama)
3) He reminds everyone that the State of Hawaii has said that document for Obama exists
4) Several times he says “why don’t they just put it out there
5) At the end of the segment the two guest agree that it should be released
6) Matthews states that we are all three in agreement then that Governor Abercrombie (Democrat) should put it out.
If that doesn’t call for the release of the document then you must be from another planet.
P.S. Matthews asks one of the guest if the short-form is good enough for someone to get into the CIA. One of the guests says, yes, and it’s good enough to also get a passport.
Regarding the CIA, that is absoultely wrong. I have conducted that type of background investigation many, many times for Top Secret clearances and you are required to either get a copy of (or view in person) that long-form certificate that shows the hospital of record, doctors signatures, etc.
P.S.S. I personally think the issue is not his place of birth but one of two or three other issues. Some issues are private but when you are running for President the public deserves the right to know certain things as it may affect how they vote.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
4:10 pm
Scout…you can keep trying but it aint true. Its a lie. But try as you might it wont work, that is why you wont post the entire transcript or a link. If I say “why doesn’t Obama switch parties?” that does not mean that it is a call for a switch, but rather a question.
Chris is not a birther, and who knows what your continued insinuated claims are about. Probably crazier than a birther. Instead of your veiled insinuations, put them out there so everyone can decide if they are sillier than Oirly. I bet they are.
Scout
January 13th, 2011
4:17 pm
Keep us the good fight!’
Sorry, I did leave the segment out. Here it is. I remind you that at the end they all three agreed it should be release. If you can’t see that you are in denial.
Enjoyed the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baH0fi2oVHs
Adam
January 13th, 2011
4:21 pm
@@: A show of force?
….a murder would be nice, of course. Bad Horse! Bad Horse!….
Adam
January 13th, 2011
4:29 pm
Scout: Regarding the CIA, that is absoultely wrong. I have conducted that type of background investigation many, many times for Top Secret clearances and you are required to either get a copy of (or view in person) that long-form certificate that shows the hospital of record, doctors signatures, etc.
If true, then why didn’t the government block Obama’s place on the ticket? Perhaps because they did find and examine the actual documents and find that he was, in fact, a natural born citizen of the United States of America? I’m just asking!
Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee Bans Talk Radio | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
January 13th, 2011
4:33 pm
[...] President Obama said last night in his Tucson address: “[I]t’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each [...]
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
4:40 pm
Scout, I saw the show. Again you are in denial and just distorting. Post the entire transcript with a link (or just a link with it selected), which is what you claimed you will do. Otherwise you really are just twisting in the wind.
md
January 13th, 2011
4:42 pm
“md…again if you state there are second amendment remedies when there is tyranny, then you have to understand where that leads. That leads to some nutcase who says, I believe there is tyranny, therefore I have a right to use violence and guns under the second amendment. You are not stating that bullets may be used in tryanny. ”
There will forever be some “nutcase” doing their own thing……doesn’t change what is written in the 2nd………”.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”
Sorry, I have a pretty good understanding of the definition of “militia” and “free State”……sounds like you’ve done a pretty good job of convincing yourself on your argument………..but on convincing others…..not so much.
Scout
January 13th, 2011
4:44 pm
Good fight:
I don’t work for you.
Scout
January 13th, 2011
4:46 pm
Adam:
There is not provision to do that centrally. It’s done by the states.
In fact, several states have/are introducing legislation (to take effect before the next presidential election) to ruire any presidential candidate who wants to run in their state to provide proof of citizenship, etc.
Keep up the good fight!
January 13th, 2011
4:56 pm
Nope you dont…but you brought your lie up. So here, since you want to continue the lies, try the truth from the NY Daily News:
“I am not a birther, I am an enemy of the birthers,” Matthew said — before offering up a comment that was reminiscent of the movement. “Why has the President himself not demanded that they put out the initial documents?”
Matthews’ comments were made during a discussion with Mother Jones reporter David Corn and Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page over Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s announcement last week that he’d put the birther controversy to bed once and for all.
Page argued the President had more important business to attend to than indulging birthers who aren’t interested in evidence. . . .
.
Matthews said Obama should demand the release of his full birth certificate.
“Don’t we want to know if he can find it? I don’t know why the governor doesn’t say, ‘Snap it up, whoever is there in the Department of Records, send me a copy right now,’” Matthews added. “And why doesn’t the President just say, ‘Send me a copy right now?’
Note the context and the question marks. While Mathews may think that Obama should release it just to end the silliness, he is not a birther and never made a DEMAND, CALL or anything close to that. He asked the question, why not give the idiots what they want to undercut the silliness.
There’s the proof of your lies and distortion. Reality bites.
Jay
January 13th, 2011
5:10 pm
That’s a silly argument. You’re not going to support policies that you apparently believe would be sane and rational because the next thing you know, they’ll want insane, irrational policies?
Adam
January 13th, 2011
5:31 pm
Scout: There’s no point to that. The states can already get the required proof of citizenship without asking the candidate to hand it over from his own personal file cabinet.
Scout
January 13th, 2011
6:53 pm
Adam:
You’ll have to take that up with the states.
Scout
January 13th, 2011
6:55 pm
Keep up the good fight! :
” While Mathews may think that Obama should release it” (He didn’t think – He said)
Thank you so much. You made my point and the other two gentlemen agreed. Release it.
ExGOP, Lefty Chafee Corrals Staff Away from Talk Radio « MN Prager Discussion Group
January 14th, 2011
12:08 am
[...] President Obama said last night in his Tucson address: “[I]t’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each [...]
Adam
January 15th, 2011
11:24 am
Also, about the teleprompter issue:
1) He didn’t use a teleprompter. One wasn’t even there (THERE’S NO WORDS ON IT!)
2) Palin used a teleprompter when she gave her spiel to TV. You can see it in her glasses reflection.
3) Whether one reads from a teleprompter or a piece of paper they brought up to the podium, it doesn’t matter.
4) The speech was good, presidential, and everything one could hope for out of ANY president at a time like this. Even the pundits on the right agree with that.
5) STFU about teleprompters and Obama’s speeches.
Kthx.
Metrodad
January 16th, 2011
9:18 am
The media promote this notion that we, the hapless populace, need the president to heal us with his soothsaying, lest we be frightened and confused. It’s insulting.