I agree. I also agree this culprit is responsible for his own actions, but I also feel that people should be held accountable for what they say and suggest. Or could we just say Hitler was as innocent as you because he didn't actually kill any Jews with his own two hands, and he was allowed to say what he wanted?
I dont dispute what you say in the least -- like I said, I'm all for this political back and forth bullshit to become much more civil. A civil discussion goes a long way as opposed to the foam-at-the-mouth blind hate that goes on now. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm in total agreement with you and the rest that these messages should have some backlash from the general public. Where I guess I differ, is I dont believe the government should be involved in determining whether a cross-hair on a map is okay.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility for what you say.
I agree -- the general public should be in an uproar about the 'Second Amendment Remedy'. Let that person know that you, as the public, find it horrendous. If enough people do it, it'll stop. The government doesn't need to intervene to say what symbol can and cannot be put in a shitty Palin ad.
You're the one with the license, did you not read up on firearms before applying?
I was being a bit facetious -- it's always irked me that people use 'assault' rifle as a way to make something more than what it is. Sort of a way to 'incite fear' as we're on the subject. A dictionary definition of an assault rifle is one that is utilized by the military. If you want to get really technical, it's illegal to own a military weapon, unless you yourself serve in the military/law enforcement. Even then, you're required to have a special license to do so and have to be cleared by said military/law enforcement to purchase one. So someone bringing a rifle into a meeting hall sounds far less threatening than someone bringing a military issued fully-automatic (which is what most people believe the 'assault' part of assault rifle to be -- which also isn't true) rifle. Does either matter? No, simply my own questioning as to why you used the word 'assault' when rifle would have done just fine. Regardless, all of the instances that I remember of this happening (the Starbucks incidents awhile ago as well as Acadia National Park in Maine are the most recent), the people brought them in in a fully legal, completely safe manner.
Who said it was a study of chaos?
There had to be a reason you brought it up -- if said peaceful political gathering remained a peaceful political gathering regardless of the 'gun-toting hillbilly', then what's the problem?
I'm all out of medals of valor, would a pat on the back and a 'Thank you good citizen!' do?
I suppose that will work.
Did you hear about that one time when someone with a gun also walked into a peaceful setting and shot a congresswoman in the head at point blank range, also killing a federal judge and a child among others?
I did. Just like you cant compare apples to oranges, you cant compare law-abiding citizens to crazy psychopaths. Legally carrying a gun into a Starbucks/Acadia National Park and following the proper protocol to have it okayed by the security/law enforcement present is vastly different than a robber hiding a 'piece' in his pants when going to hold up a 7-11.