BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:23:55 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:42:05 -0500, "A.True.Boater"
wrote:

Let's turn down the vicious rhetoric and do what we can to handle
disagreements in a civil manner.

Many people have stated that Palin's "Targets" were in bad taste and
could be all the motivation for a mentally disturbed individual needs to
push them over the edge, then these same people go out of their way to
try to be more offensive then Palin's "target" rhetoric.

Why is that? Why should one try to take advantage of a tragedy to
highlight the perceived problems of those we disagree.

I feel sorry for the loved ones of those hurt and killed by this madman.
I feel more sorry for society that uses a tragedy to score political
points. We will see this from both liberals and conservative unless we
all say enough is enough.

Isn't it time we all grew up?

Bear in mind the word "target" is used by both sides. Chris Matthews
also likes the phrase "gunning for you". Maybe they should choose
their words more carefully but we have a lot of that rhetoric in our
culture.

Yes, the word "target" is used by both sides, but that doesn't make
the use of it by both sides equivalent. It's one thing to target a
district to devote resources to win a political campaign, and it's
quite another to target a specific person with the cross hairs of a
gun sight. Please explain how these two things could be even close to
the same thing.

It's like using the word "gay." If one says, "I had a gay old time,"
that has one meaning. Saying, "That is so gay," that's quite another.

It is sad that we have people who think killing people is OK but that
is not a new phenomena. Crazy people have been killing politicians for
thousands of years.

It's not a new phenomena, but it certainly is being pumped up lately,
and mostly by the right. They're the ones claiming 2nd Amendment
"remedies," as though it's ok to say something like that in a civil
society. You won't find too many "mainstream" left-leaning politicians
and talking heads saying stuff like that.

I would like to see mentally disturbed people added to the hits on a
firearm background check but privacy advocates will not let that
happen. Right now the only way they show up is if they are judged
mentally incompetent by a court. That has bit us in the ass a number
of times in the last couple decades.

And your solution?