• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arlington Man Loses Gun License Due To Blog About Tucson Shooting

The fruitcakes are still out there, and this particular fruitcake needs to be in jail for threatening the lives of Congresspersons. I am waiting for people to post in this thread about the poor man's first amendment rights being trampled.

And here is the problem. Along with rights come responsibilities. Of course, there are some who have the right to scream without consequences. They are babies of course. They scream if they want their diaper changed. They scream if they are hungry. They scream if the can't have access to their favorite toy. And that's OK. After all, we are talking about a baby here. As a child grows into a man or woman, the paradigm changes, as responsibility is taught. And grownups just don't claim a first amendment right to advocate murder of government officials. As far as the Second Amendment goes, this Bozo just forfeited his right to it. Again, this is about responsibility. Should criminals be allowed to have guns? Important question, since what this man advocated on his blog is definitely criminal.



I really want to see if anyone is going to defend this. My bet is that nobody in his right mind will.
Discussion?

Article is here.

Like I've always said, you are no conservative. Furthermore you've already insulted anyone who might disagree with you, and then ask for discussion. :roll:
 
makes me feel comfortable about our gun laws.

I seriously doubt that you needed this to change your opinion of our gun laws.


I'm a conservative, who owns guns, and I'm sorry, I just can't get behind this mans 1st amendment rights. His statement of 1 down, and 534 to go, could and should very well be considered threatening, even more so with the AZ. Shootings just a couple weeks ago, and his reference to them.

It should be noted that he has not been charged with a crime, and his guns have been removed temporarily, along with his license to have them.

I would hope that law enforcement does a exhaustive back ground check on this guy, and also have him submit to a physiological test if he wants his license and weapons back .

The argument that his rights are being infringed upon, is somewhat questionable, since the only thing that has happened to him is to have his license and weapons removed, until it can be determined if he is just being a jack-ass with a big mouth and a small brain, or if there was any substance behind what he said. To my way of thinking, that is sound and reasonable law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson, Paris, November 13, 1787
Any questions from the peanut gallery who hate the Constitution?
 
I
, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Who here was/is in the military? Have you forgotten you oath? Did you promise end when you left the military? Every public servant takes an oath like this.
 
If he has broken the law, he should suffer the civil and criminal penalties for having done so. If he has not broken the law, the government has no business restricting his human rights.

Just to check then. You think that Jared Loughner was and should have been perfectly entitled to carry a gun despite there having been evidence of him being an unstable misfit who could be dangerous? You think that it is fine for mentally ill people to carry guns as long as they have not committed a crime? You don't think the State has the right to restrict the human rights of people who are medically assessed to be a threat to my daughters, if they have not committed a crime?

Just checking. It is of course a logical position. It would be great to see it tested at the polls.
 
Just to check then. You think that Jared Loughner was and should have been perfectly entitled to carry a gun despite there having been evidence of him being an unstable misfit who could be dangerous? You think that it is fine for mentally ill people to carry guns as long as they have not committed a crime? You don't think the State has the right to restrict the human rights of people who are medically assessed to be a threat to my daughters, if they have not committed a crime?

Just checking. It is of course a logical position. It would be great to see it tested at the polls.

You're in the wrong thread, this isn't about Laughner.
 
You're in the wrong thread, this isn't about Laughner.

What are you on about?

I was responding to a statement of principle made on this thread, by asking how that principle related to Loughner, the person responsible for the Tucson shooting.

If you look you might see that this thread title includes the words "Tucson shooting".

So how is this the wrong thread?

Your statement is just an abusive piece of trollery. Why don't you engage in debate rather than obfuscation? It's what forums like this are for.

Is it inconvenient for you that so many conservatives criticized the Arizona authorities for not doing their job and preventing Loughner for carrying a gun, but that now many conservatives are posting windy statements of principle about people's unrestrictable right to carry a gun however crazy, unstable and dangerous they may be?
 
Last edited:
What are you on about?

I was responding to a statement of principle made on this thread, by asking how that principle related to Loughner, the person responsible for the Tucson shooting.

If you look you might see that this thread title includes the words "Tucson shooting".

So how is this the wrong thread?

Your statement is just an abusive piece of trollery. Why don't you engage in debate rather than obfuscation? It's what forums like this are for.

Is it inconvenient for you that so many conservatives criticized the Arizona authorities for not doing their job and preventing Loughner for carrying a gun, but that now many conservatives are posting windy statements of principle about people's unrestrictable right to carry a gun however crazy, unstable and dangerous they may be?

Why don't you discuss the Arlington man, instead of trying to hijack the thread for your own purpose. There's a button on the outside of this thread for that. You can start your own. It's easy for you liberals to trying to subvert the rights of the people when someone gets shot. Your kneejerk reactions adversely affect everyone's rightst.
 
Why don't you discuss the Arlington man, instead of trying to hijack the thread for your own purpose. There's a button on the outside of this thread for that. You can start your own. It's easy for you liberals to trying to subvert the rights of the people when someone gets shot. Your kneejerk reactions adversely affect everyone's rightst.

The pathetic "you liberals" juvenility just confirms the worthlessness of this drivel. I'm looking for a site with intelligent conservative posts to test my debating skills. Do I have to expect a lot of this flamebaiting and trollery on here when I make an extremely pertinent comment that directly answers another post? Please others let me know. Life's too short for playing pattacake so if there's a lot of this tedious crap I'll go looking somewhere else for intelligent life.

This one's now on ignore. I hope I don't have to do that too much.
 
Last edited:
The pathetic "you liberals" juvenility just confirms the worthlessness of this drivel. I'm looking for a site with intelligent conservative posts to test my debating skills. Do I have to expect a lot of this flamebaiting and trollery on here when I make an extremely pertinent comment that directly answers another post? Please others let me know. Life's too short for playing pattacake so if there's a lot of this tedious crap I'll go looking somewhere else for intelligent life.

This one's now on ignore. I hope I don't have to do that too much.

Just ignore the useless posters. Its what the rest of us do. I tend to not use the system ignore though. I just know who is quality and who is not.
 
I seriously doubt that you needed this to change your opinion of our gun laws.


I'm a conservative, who owns guns, and I'm sorry, I just can't get behind this mans 1st amendment rights. His statement of 1 down, and 534 to go, could and should very well be considered threatening, even more so with the AZ. Shootings just a couple weeks ago, and his reference to them.

It should be noted that he has not been charged with a crime, and his guns have been removed temporarily, along with his license to have them.

I would hope that law enforcement does a exhaustive back ground check on this guy, and also have him submit to a physiological test if he wants his license and weapons back .

The argument that his rights are being infringed upon, is somewhat questionable, since the only thing that has happened to him is to have his license and weapons removed, until it can be determined if he is just being a jack-ass with a big mouth and a small brain, or if there was any substance behind what he said. To my way of thinking, that is sound and reasonable law enforcement.

Very well put and the key words are that " guns have been removed temporarily".

In another thread about who was the blame for the Tucson shooting so many posters asked "why didn't somebody who saw troubling signs in the shooter do something"

And now some of those same posters are screaming about this guy's rights. You people crack me up.
 
Just to check then. You think that Jared Loughner was and should have been perfectly entitled to carry a gun despite there having been evidence of him being an unstable misfit who could be dangerous? You think that it is fine for mentally ill people to carry guns as long as they have not committed a crime? You don't think the State has the right to restrict the human rights of people who are medically assessed to be a threat to my daughters, if they have not committed a crime?

Just checking. It is of course a logical position. It would be great to see it tested at the polls.

Has this guy exhibited the same mental instability as Loughner did?
 
If only he only said that portion though right?

He also said 1 down, 534 more to go. Who knows what that means :roll:

That's right: who knows? Are the thought police going to do a Vulcan mind meld on him to confirm if there was malice in his heart when he made that statement?
 
Just to check then. You think that Jared Loughner was and should have been perfectly entitled to carry a gun despite there having been evidence of him being an unstable misfit who could be dangerous? You think that it is fine for mentally ill people to carry guns as long as they have not committed a crime? You don't think the State has the right to restrict the human rights of people who are medically assessed to be a threat to my daughters, if they have not committed a crime?
I realize that this is off topic but what evidence was there that Loughner was mentally ill? Did he go to a certified quack to be examined? You want gunshops, walmarts and other stores to take part in denying people their constitutional rights based on hear say? This is a man who had planned ahead. Those unconstitutional waiting periods, unconstitutional licenses and any other unconstitutional laws would have not stopped Loughner. So yes Loughner should have been able to buy a gun. Are you suggesting that the federal government have a database of hear-say made by people with no degrees what so ever in the mental health field in order to block other people from owning fire-arms?


Just checking. It is of course a logical position. It would be great to see it tested at the polls.
Yes there is a poll
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/89655-should-az-shooter-have-been-able-buy-gun.html
 
Last edited:
I realize that this is off topic but what evidence was there that Loughner was mentally ill? Did he go to a certified quack to be examined? You want gunshops, walmarts and other stores to take part in denying people their constitutional rights based on hear say? This is a man who had planned ahead. Those unconstitutional waiting periods, unconstitutional licenses and any other unconstitutional laws would have not stopped Loughner. So yes Loughner should have been able to buy a gun. Are you suggesting that the federal government have a database of hear-say made by people with no degrees what so ever in the mental health field in order to block other people from owning fire-arms?



Yes there is a poll
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/89655-should-az-shooter-have-been-able-buy-gun.html

I'll be waiting to see if he answers apdst. If he doesn't, he's just a hack.
 
This is ridiculous in my opinion and possibly unconstitutional.
Are we going to search everyone's home who has made similar comments on the internet? Granted, I didn't see his words in context to form an opinion as to whether or not it was something to be taken seriously.
Is his blog out there somewhere?

You have to be kidding me. This guy openly advocated for the assassination of elected officials. Geez.
 
The fruitcakes are still out there, and this particular fruitcake needs to be in jail for threatening the lives of Congresspersons. I am waiting for people to post in this thread about the poor man's first amendment rights being trampled.

And here is the problem. Along with rights come responsibilities. Of course, there are some who have the right to scream without consequences. They are babies of course. They scream if they want their diaper changed. They scream if they are hungry. They scream if the can't have access to their favorite toy. And that's OK. After all, we are talking about a baby here. As a child grows into a man or woman, the paradigm changes, as responsibility is taught. And grownups just don't claim a first amendment right to advocate murder of government officials. As far as the Second Amendment goes, this Bozo just forfeited his right to it. Again, this is about responsibility. Should criminals be allowed to have guns? Important question, since what this man advocated on his blog is definitely criminal.



I really want to see if anyone is going to defend this. My bet is that nobody in his right mind will.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Well since you asked. I don't think the comment constituted an actual threat. If we were punishing people through government force against the rights of the individual for every time someone said something about shooting a politician or hanging them or whatever; I dare say many of us would be in dire straights right now. While it is irresponsible to carte blanche advocate violence against the government, it is still a valid and proper tool of the People. Are we at the point where we really need to employ it? No, I don't believe we are. However, violence is the ultimate check against the government the People have. Revolt is a proper tool of the People. Now people have said for decades and more now in jest or sometimes not that so and so politician should be sent to the gallows or something of the sort. I don't think it is proper to use government force against people saying that unless there is evidence indicating that it is a credible threat. That's it.

With rights comes consequences. And one of those consequences is that the government is restricted from acting against the rights and liberties of the people without due cause. I do not think that was demonstrated nor established in this case. As such, it remains unlawful and unjust use of government force against the rights of the individual.
 
You have to be kidding me. This guy openly advocated for the assassination of elected officials. Geez.

Where did he say that? I took his comment to mean that we just need to vote the rest of them out of office.
 
Where did he say that? I took his comment to mean that we just need to vote the rest of them out of office.

It was the headline “1 down and 534 to go” that caught the attention. “One” refers to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in the rampage, while 534 refers to the other members of the U.S. House and Senate.

If you haven't noticed, the Congresswoman was shot, not voted out of office.

In his blog Corcoran writes, “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.”

He said "shoot" and "target." Not ballot box.
 
If you haven't noticed, the Congresswoman was shot, not voted out of office.



He said "shoot" and "target." Not ballot box.

So, you were there when the thought police did the Vulcan mind meld?
 
I realize that this is off topic but what evidence was there that Loughner was mentally ill? Did he go to a certified quack to be examined? You want gunshops, walmarts and other stores to take part in denying people their constitutional rights based on hear say? This is a man who had planned ahead. Those unconstitutional waiting periods, unconstitutional licenses and any other unconstitutional laws would have not stopped Loughner. So yes Loughner should have been able to buy a gun. Are you suggesting that the federal government have a database of hear-say made by people with no degrees what so ever in the mental health field in order to block other people from owning fire-arms?



Yes there is a poll
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/89655-should-az-shooter-have-been-able-buy-gun.html

There was plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest he was mentally ill. Ultimately, if he was, he never got treatment for it. Responsibility in this case probably lies with the parents and those close to him.
 
There was plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest he was mentally ill. Ultimately, if he was, he never got treatment for it. Responsibility in this case probably lies with the parents and those close to him.

Oh, so now friends and family are at fault for the Safeway shoot? Boy, that list keeps getting longer and has everyone on it, but Jared Loughner.
 
Oh, so now friends and family are at fault for the Safeway shoot? Boy, that list keeps getting longer and has everyone on it, but Jared Loughner.

If a neighbor had a pit bull that had shown aggressiveness against humans that got loose from their yard and ripped your child apart.

Would you say the dog was totally at fault and owner shouldn't have no guilt?
 
Back
Top Bottom