Wacky Republicans at it Again

Thargor

The Republican Party in Arizona's Pima County, represented by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), is raffling the same model of gun that nearly killed her outside a Tucson grocery store in January. The raffle tickets for the firearm cost $10.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/republicans-rep-gabrielle-giffords-district-hold-fundraising-raffle-gun

:P

gargleblaster

I wouldn't say "wacky" is the first adjective that popped into my mind when I saw this story.

Would have used a different smiley as well, or none. I don't see the humor in this at all.

IrishMark

Yeah, strikes me as insensitive rather than wacky!

Amerika

Other than the make, they’re different semi-automatics – different size, different caliber. And if you are looking for protection, Glock is the most reliable and safest gun out there IMO. You can have it loaded and throw it against a wall and it won’t fire.

And owning a handgun is a Right here. As is being able to protect yourself. Judging us by some other country's standards is rather disingenuous. Think about it, often if someone is a victim of violence here, one of the first things many victims often do is get themselves a gun for future protection. I have family and friends in Arizona. With all the illegal aliens there and the violence that some bring - primarily the gangs, owning a gun makes sense.

So Republicans are wacky for exercising a Constitutional Right, just because some nut did something? It’s almost like saying it’s ridiculous to buy a Ford because someone was killed by a drunk driver driving in a Ford. Liberal nonsense!

matthew8

The right to bear arms is important, but raffling guns? That goes too far for me. Not the first time the Arizona GOP has gone too far for me.

Overheal

I was ignoring the content of this thread until Amerika pointed out we were talking about a Glock.

Seriously. It's a Glock. Nevermind it's not even the same kind of Glock. Do you know how common a glock is?

You might as well get offended at people who use youtube, because thats where loughner published a good chunk of his rants.

@Amerika: specifically an F-150

IrishMark

Amerika wrote: »

With all the illegal aliens there and the violence that some bring - primarily the gangs, owning a gun makes sense.

Your implication that crime in AZ is largely dependent upon immigrants is quite insulting. Crime would exist to a similar level without illegal immigrants, a fact borne out by figures showing higher crime rates with right-wing governments than with liberal governments.

Amerika wrote: »

So Republicans are wacky for exercising a Constitutional Right, just because some nut did something? It’s almost like saying it’s ridiculous to buy a Ford because someone was killed by a drunk driver driving in a Ford. Liberal nonsense!

a)Your analogy is false;
b) As the right-wing are so often reminding us, I think this violates that rule of 'no rights without responsibilties'. From a pragmatic viewpoint I think this is only going to stir tensions in the state;
c) Consrvative Nonsense.

Overheal

IrishMark wrote: »

Your implication that crime in AZ is largely dependent upon immigrants is quite insulting.

I don't think he said anything about a criminal majority, just that he would be motivated to defend himself living there due to border and gang activity. You are familiar with the current Mexican Drug War I hope? And how are you "Insulted", IrishMark?

I could be motivated to own a gun if someone robbed my neighbor's home. That doesn't mean that I think the majority of crimes are home robberies.















Incidentally though: I'm motivated by Zombies.

IrishMark

Overheal wrote: »

I don't think he said anything about a criminal majority

Amerika wrote: »

With all the illegal aliens there and the violence that some bring - primarily the gangs

The implication seemed pretty obvious that he would not require a gun were it not for immigrants If there were a greater factor in him owning a gun, it surely would have been mentioned instead...

Overheal

IrishMark wrote: »

The implication seemed pretty obvious that he would not require a gun were it not for immigrants If there were a greater factor in him owning a gun, it surely would have been mentioned instead...

Right, but that's not what you said:

Your implication that crime in AZ is largely dependent upon immigrants is quite insulting.

You're the only person so far that has insinuated the emboldened statement.

There's frankly nothing "Insulting" about someone wanting to defend themselves if an area is violent, as the Border regions can be.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Incidentally though: I'm motivated by Zombies.

You're motivated by Democrats????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k

IrishMark

Overheal wrote: »

Right, but that's not what you said: You're the only person so far that has insinuated the emboldened statement.

I don't see any contradiction between my statements

Overheal wrote: »

There's frankly nothing "Insulting" about someone wanting to defend themselves if an area is violent, as the Border regions can be.

It is insulting if it is implied that a major contributing factor to the level of crime in an area is the existence of immigrants.

Moreover, it ignores the fact that as much, if not more, crime occurs in mid and northern states as in the southern ones. For example, the state with the highest crime rate is Nevada, a non-border state.

norbert64

The make/model of the gun part, is a moot point really.

The main issue here is that this is tasteless and wholly inappropriate :eek: :eek: :eek:

FISMA

IrishMark wrote: »

Your implication that crime in AZ is largely dependent upon immigrants is quite insulting. C

IrishMark,
How did you "largely dependent" from

Amerika wrote: »

With all the illegal aliens there and the violence that some bring - primarily the gangs, owning a gun makes sense.

That's not what Amerika said or implied. Why are you misquoting the OP?

Overheal

IrishMark wrote: »

It is insulting if it is implied that a major contributing factor to the level of crime in an area is the existence of immigrants.

Moreover, it ignores the fact that as much, if not more, crime occurs in mid and northern states as in the southern ones. For example, the state with the highest crime rate is Nevada, a non-border state.

I think you're still misinterpreting what he said and suggest you read what he said originally with an open mind. I'm just going to leave it there though, be as insulted as you like I suppose.

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

With all the illegal aliens there and the violence that some bring - primarily the gangs, owning a gun makes sense.

I thought that's what the native Indians would've said? :P

Overheal

And in the end I believe most of them were wiped out by European diseases, not by guns

Amerika

Ahhhh Internet again… still experiencing intermittent problems from Hurricane Irene.

I referenced Arizona, but I will include California and Texas – border states that have a lot of illegal alien gang activity. The high level of violent crime there has a lot to do drug smuggling, human trafficking, and kidnapping. In 2004, 11.1% of Arizona’s prison population were illegals, compared with 7% of the overall state population. 12.4% of California prisoners were illegals, compared with an estimated 6.9% of the state population. And in Texas, the percentage was also higher in the prisons than it was statewide. These three states are home to an estimated 4.7 million of the 11 million illegal aliens in the country. Also in 2008 the number of attacks on Border Patrol agents increased 46 percent to 1,097. Like it or not the percentage of crime is higher among the illegal alien population! It’s dangerous down there primarily due to the gang activity of illegal aliens, there is no denying it. I can’t say the same for other states that have high illegal alien populations like Illinois, because it isn’t located in close proximity to the border which is where the high level of gang activity is centered. And I believe the violent crime statistics in IL correlate to population.

Anybody in there right mind knows the border region with Mexico is a dangerous place primarily due to the illegal alien gang population, and anybody in their right mind will do something to protect themselves from it, or get the hell out. Bigoted… NO! Smart… YES!

And those who think themselves above that thinking, I have an offer for you. If you come to the US and want to stay in Manhattan, I will point you to places to stay (and not too far away from most things of interest), which will cost you a third of the cost of most other locations in safer areas . You may not survive, but what does that matter, eh? Unfortunately they will be ethnic areas with high gang activity. We can inscribe on your headstone “I may be an idiot, but I’m no bigot.” Lets just hope your spouse and kids understand.

Carcharodon

Overheal wrote: »

Right, but that's not what you said: You're the only person so far that has insinuated the emboldened statement.

There's frankly nothing "Insulting" about someone wanting to defend themselves if an area is violent, as the Border regions can be.

Amerikas comment was per usual highly loaded and ignorant.

20Cent

Here's another one. A comedian speaking at the Tea Party of American rally on Saturday compared left-leaning Americans to "special needs children" just 30 minutes before former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmudt-OvuRM&feature=player_embedded

Matt Holck

Amerika wrote: »

Other than the make, they’re different semi-automatics – different size, different caliber. And if you are looking for protection, Glock is the most reliable and safest gun out there IMO. You can have it loaded and throw it against a wall and it won’t fire.

And owning a handgun is a Right here. As is being able to protect yourself. Judging us by some other country's standards is rather disingenuous. Think about it, often if someone is a victim of violence here, one of the first things many victims often do is get themselves a gun for future protection. I have family and friends in Arizona. With all the illegal aliens there and the violence that some bring - primarily the gangs, owning a gun makes sense.

So Republicans are wacky for exercising a Constitutional Right, just because some nut did something? It’s almost like saying it’s ridiculous to buy a Ford because someone was killed by a drunk driver driving in a Ford. Liberal nonsense!

non sense yes

liberal no

propaganda is propaganda

Thargor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037066/Ron-Paul-GOP-debate-Tea-Party-fanatics-say-let-uninsured-people-die.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

You have to wonder how bad its going to get before (if?) things change.

matthew8

Thargor wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037066/Ron-Paul-GOP-debate-Tea-Party-fanatics-say-let-uninsured-people-die.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

You have to wonder how bad its going to get before (if?) things change.

That article was about "let them die". Those people were pro-obamacare and mocking the tea party's opinions.

Matt Holck

there is no such thing as Obama care

only health care

matthew8

Matt Holck wrote: »

there is no such thing as Obama care

only health care

Forced insurance you mean.

Matt Holck

forces insurance to private companies

apparently the public is not wise enough to handle their own money in the government

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

forces insurance to private companies

And individuals, the source of much hot debate. You can see for yourself if you google single payer/individual mandate.

there is no such thing as Obama care

only health care

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare

Not sure why you need to be in denial about it. I'm not. There's parts I like and parts I don't.

Matt Holck

because I still don't have health care


because the US has been looking at providing Health Care to it's people for many years longer than Obama

Overheal

And until the mandate becomes effective thats your choice. The Obamacare Bill has been passed into law though: it exists. And several of it's measures are already in effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Effective June 21, 2010

• Adults with pre-existing conditions became eligible to join a temporary high-risk pool, which will be superseded by the health care exchange in 2014.[35][40] To qualify for coverage, applicants must have a pre-existing health condition and have been uninsured for at least the past six months.[41] There is no age requirement.[41] The new program sets premiums as if for a standard population and not for a population with a higher health risk. Allows premiums to vary by age (4:1), geographic area, and family composition. Limit out-of-pocket spending to $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families, excluding premiums.[41][42][43]

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&action=edit&section=6"]edit[/URL Effective July 1, 2010

• The President established, within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a council to be known as the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council to help begin to develop a National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy. The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chairperson of the new Council.[44][45]
• A 10% tax on indoor tanning took effect.

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&action=edit&section=7"]edit[/URL Effective September 23, 2010

• Insurers are prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays in new policies issued.[46]
• Dependents (children) will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday,[47] and regulations implemented under the Act include dependents that no longer live with their parents, are not a dependent on a parent’s tax return, are no longer a student, or are married.[48][49]
• Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.[50][51]
• Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance, or deductibles for Level A or Level B preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.[52]
• Individuals affected by the Medicare Part D coverage gap will receive a $250 rebate, and 50% of the gap will be eliminated in 2011.[53] The gap will be eliminated by 2020.
• Insurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.[35]
• Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get sick.[35]
• Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.[35]
• Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.[35]
• Enhanced methods of fraud detection are implemented.[35]
• Medicare is expanded to small, rural hospitals and facilities.[35]
• Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored/evaluated on a 3 month basis for coverage of the medications for treatment of such illnesses.
• Non-profit Blue Cross insurers are required to maintain a loss ratio (money spent on procedures over money incoming) of 85% or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.[35]
• Companies which provide early retiree benefits for individuals aged 55–64 are eligible to participate in a temporary program which reduces premium costs.[35]
• A new website installed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services will provide consumer insurance information for individuals and small businesses in all states.[35]
• A temporary credit program is established to encourage private investment in new therapies for disease treatment and prevention.[35]

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&action=edit&section=8"]edit[/URL Effective by January 1, 2011

• Insurers will be required to spend 85% of large-group and 80% of small-group and individual plan premiums (with certain adjustments) on healthcare or to improve healthcare quality, or return the difference to the customer as a rebate.[54]
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is responsible for developing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation and overseeing the testing of innovative payment and delivery models.[55]
• Flexible spending accounts, Health reimbursement accounts and health savings accounts cannot be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs, purchased without a prescription, except insulin.[56]

Matt Holck

It's not my choice

I don't have the money

National Health Care would have involved much less paper work

I have no desire to play layers game with a health insurance company

nsurers will be required to spend 85% of large-group and 80% of small-group and individual plan premiums (with certain adjustments) on healthcare or to improve healthcare quality, or return the difference to the customer as a rebate.[54]

do the money shufflers serious need 15 and 20& profit?

jackiebaron

Amerika wrote: »

Other than the make, they’re different semi-automatics – different size, different caliber. And if you are looking for protection, Glock is the most reliable and safest gun out there IMO. You can have it loaded and throw it against a wall and it won’t fire.

And owning a handgun is a Right here. As is being able to protect yourself. Judging us by some other country's standards is rather disingenuous. Think about it, often if someone is a victim of violence here, one of the first things many victims often do is get themselves a gun for future protection. I have family and friends in Arizona. With all the illegal aliens there and the violence that some bring - primarily the gangs, owning a gun makes sense.

So Republicans are wacky for exercising a Constitutional Right, just because some nut did something? It’s almost like saying it’s ridiculous to buy a Ford because someone was killed by a drunk driver driving in a Ford. Liberal nonsense!

Ah grow the fück up with your sad "owning a gun" is a right crap. Owning a beer glass that I can shatter and grind into your face or a pair of steel toe-cap boots that I can kick you into a wheelchair with is a right too. Doesn't make my use of these tools somehow sacrosanct. Doesn't your fakeass Constitional right only cover guns or should you also be allowed to possess explosives, chemical/bacterial agents, weapons grade nuclear material?

You Americans are afraid of everything and a fair fight is one of them. That's why you just have to have a gun....even if your imaginary adversary just has his fists.

Amerika

jackiebaron wrote: »

Ah grow the fück up with your sad "owning a gun" is a right crap. Owning a beer glass that I can shatter and grind into your face or a pair of steel toe-cap boots that I can kick you into a wheelchair with is a right too. Doesn't make my use of these tools somehow sacrosanct. Doesn't your fakeass Constitional right only cover guns or should you also be allowed to possess explosives, chemical/bacterial agents, weapons grade nuclear material?

You Americans are afraid of everything and a fair fight is one of them. That's why you just have to have a gun....even if your imaginary adversary just has his fists.

Words of wisdom from the lunatic fringe?