Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Who are "they"? Where do the have "their" meetings? Can anyone join up with "them"? Are the wealthy defined as anyone who has more wealth than you have? Why are you so angry? Why do you hate the wealthy? I don't expect you'll answer my questions, so why would I want to join up with you?
I wonder just how many takes it took Palin to get that speech 'in the can'?
She has some very dangerous counselors.
Yeah Thom there are many shreds of decency in Sara, she shreds her decency all the time.
HA!
N
Well Palin continues to be polarizing. What a maroon, what an ingnoramoose, she could have just quietly walked back her rhetoric and admitted that maybe she was over the top, but oh no no no, true to form she just had to double down and attack back with a wink wink nudge nudge. Its because she predictably heads off down the worst path like that, when doing the wise thing may just be stating your Mea Culpa, even in some small part, this is why she is not qualified to be president. Yeah she may be electable.. to some, but she is in no way competent, and her speech proves that without a doubt.
Again, thank you John McCain, in choosing this idiot as your running mate, you did more to elect Obama then if you had personally endorsed him yourself, but unfortunately you doomed the American people to have to endure this slack jawed dumb ass on the main political stage, instead of letting her be drummed out of politics as her corrupt positions would have naturally done.
N
I live in Maricopa County, in Arizona and am an active Democrat. I have had guns brandished directly at me during ralies. My question is: where does the right to carry a exposed gun end and my right to not be intimidated, which the incidences I have experienced have no doubtly been.
The atmosphere here is extremely intimidating and oppressive.
Sarah Palin's expressed belief that society cannot influence whether a person commits a crime perfectly meshes with the Republican denial of global warming. To them, there's no such thing as a collective effect arising from human action. In other words, two plus two equal two.
As with Dan Quayle, the right wingers were so relieved when they discovered that Sarah Palin could read a teleprompter and speak at the same time.
If we are a "light to the rest of the world," why do so many people prefer to remain in the dark? Could it be that we don't know that our light might be someone else's darkness?
I lived in Canada from 2000 to 2006. Long guns in Canada are as popular or more popular then guns in the USA. Handguns, however, are not. One reason for the difference is not difference in laws, but difference in attitude toward guns. Guns in Canada are used for sport, guns in the USA are almost a religion. Gun use in the USA will not change until we change our attitude about guns. Passing new gun laws and calling gun owners stupid will not change attitudes. Blaming George Bush won't work either. The effect of all the name calling and blame, only makes gun lovers and the NRA dig in their heels and become more determined to prevent any changes in attitude and laws. I'm not a gun owner nor a gun lover and I would like to see gun owners be licensed. But, the sanctimonious I know what's best for you approach taken by the left pisses me off. I too become a resistor to gun control efforts. Try a different approach, we are trying to change attitudes, not laws.
Better, or more, gun control would not have prevented this tragedy. Sure, it might have prevented him from obtaining a firearm and ammunition legally, but Loughner would have probably gone the illegal route to get what he wanted.
BTW, the Assualt Weapon Ban, even if it had not expired, would have had little impact upon preventing this. The semi-automatic pistol was never banned, nor was the high capacity magazine. What was banned was the sale of magazines manufactured during this period to civilians. If the magazine was manufactured before the AWB, it could be sold. In all reality, the AWB had little to no impact upon gun crime. All it did was make the purchase of a new "scary looking gun" with a high capacity magazine not possible.
There is unnecessary derogatory talk from both left and right. The most egregious among those that participate in that practice is "Angry" Mike Malloy.
THE MOVIE INDUSTRY IS THE GREATEST PROMOTER OF GUN VIOLENCE IN HUMAN HISTORY
Consider the next movie you watch and ask yourself "When is someone going to pull out the gun?" It's really getting boring. The Matrix is a classic example. When have you seen a movie that does not feature the gun as either the total threat or the hero that saves the day? The guy who has the gun in every movie has all the power over life or death. The truth is, with the exception of Walt Disney cartoons-you haven't. (I don't remember a gun in Titanic)
The average person never fires a gun in their entire life. For most people guns are not relevant yet movie writers seem to be too lazy to come up with any real plot in 99% of the same old thing- they always haul out the guns.
Do they sit in their lounges at the pools with their margaritas in LA writing this dribble thinking:"Wow...this is really going to get 'em-watch out! the guy has a gun! "They stink as writers. The Movie industry is the single greatest marketer of guns in the world today and it dwarfs the NRA in influence.
Though this is true, there will not be one single journalist or politician that would ever take them on. It's cowardice. They will never cross the big guns.
What you are missinbg is the fact that 80 people per day die by
guns. This is nearly 30,000 per year. The UK last year had around
50 deaths total by firearms.
What are your ideas, real ideas, sensible ideas to bring these numbers
down, other than get more guns in the hands of more people.
I think intelligent people can come up something better and maybe
bring some sanity into the situation.
Yes, we need to change our gun laws, but with America's love affair with guns and the strong gun lobby, it will never happen.
yes
Right on, dkmich!
You are correct! And well said.
And I highly recommend everyone watch the documentary currently being played on Free Speech TV called "Vietnam: America's Holocaust"
The local Germans near Nazi concentration camps were made, by General Eisenhower, to tour the facilities and the mass graves so that the Germans could not deny that this thing happened. We have Americans that will not own up to what our government and military had done in Vietnam...and now, the Middle East. After seeing this documentary...it was really very eye-opening. Even though I had always opposed the Vietnam war and heard about atrocities we committed, it still does not hit home as it did after watching this documentary. It also draws parallels to our same kind of criminal actions in the Middle East.
In a previous post I said: "The link below is allegedly a press release from John Dingell's office: "Dingell Questions Reno on Prosecution Rate of Federal Firearm Felons""
The following link is the correct link to the article referenced in the "firing line" post.
http://dingell.house.gov/documents/press_releases/106th_Congress/08-02-0...
The basic problem is that the laws are not being enforced. We have thousands upon thousands of weapons laws on the books, but that doesn't mean there is any money provided to enforce them.
A glaring example (not a gun law) occurred in a recent District of Columbia election in which a referendum was offered on the subject of medical marijuana. A congressman managed to slip in a provision that eliminated any federal funding that would allow the votes to be counted.
Blaming guns is like blaming a keypad for misspelled words....
While he is a "crazy guy" I believe that Palin, as well as other Right Wing talkers, are responsible in some respects. Anyone on the brink of commiting an act as reprehensible as this may have been "pushed over the cliff" by the irresponsible tenor of discussion coming from these sources. Besides, if she didn't think that her website was inappropriate she wouldn't of taken it down so quickly.
Vietnam: America's Holocaust
I highly recommend this documentary which is currently playing on Free Speech TV.
Would a tightening of gun control laws, better screening, etc. have prevented this horrible situation? Maybe, maybe not. But, in the long run, since he had long clips, and multiple long clips, and was one who probably 'could not have gotten a job at a fast food joint' because of mental instability, why take the risk?
When one errors, it is always better to error on the side of 'least possible damage', rather than the other way. And, I'm sorry, least possible damage is damage to unsuspecting humans, people getting on with their own lives, not some gun runner's idea of saving himself or his 'country' from all evil.
I wrote a column on this subject yesterday. I really believe that making this a gun control referendum is playing into the hands of people that want to take our civil liberties and privacy rights in other ways. The column can be found here.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-chicago/arizona-tragedy-doesn-t-...
Thank you,
Mike
If Mr. Loughner is as crazy as faux news would like us to believe, then the next question should be: Why was Congresswoman Giffords his target? If he is simply deranged to the point where no accountability for his actions can be accessed from the influences that may or may not have been affecting his decision at the time of the crime, then, why this event? Would faux news then argue that his target was purely random, and that the gathering of people around the congresswoman were merely the unfortunate recipients of a raging lunitic? Was there no premeditation in his thought process? Why then, when he could not obtain wepeons rounds from the first Wal-mart, did he proceed to the next. A complete lunitic, as they suggest, would have gone over the counter and began his may-hem right there. NO! Mr. Loughner knew exactly his intent, and, was intent on bringing his plan to fruition. He fully intended to become a hero for the political mechanism which he probably so longingly wanted to be accepted by. Whether he is rational by common standards is irrelevant. This crime was a result of influence.
I agree with the assessment that this guy was mentally ill and we need to confront this problem. It is amazing to think of how many of these 'lost' individuals are out there walking our streets, sleeping under bridges and stumbling along the highways without guidance. We can thank the great Conservative Hero, Ronald Reagan for emptying the mental hospitals and starting this flood.
Imagine if Jared would have had a safe facility to treat his mental illness and paranoia. Who knows, he might have become an asset instead of yet another crazed wild gun toting individuals trying to find a way to get attention by taking it out on others.