tucson: Every time an event occurs, liberals go straight into left-wing ideology instead of actually addressing the problem. Tucson is a prime example. A logical person would have concluded: That the shooter was very disturbed Had many run-ins with authorities Had many complaints and discussions about his instability Therefore, we need to strengthen our laws to get the insane of the streets. But what did liberals actually do? They used the tragedy to launch false attacks on their political enemies, and when that didn't work, they attacked the 2nd Amendment. Are liberals that out of touch with reality, or are they just complete frauds?|||In my opinion if they did address the real problem which is mental health half would themselves be committed and not just to left wing ideals but to a place where needs are issued, it is a fact that 1/4 of all college students are taking anti depressants (NBC reported that one)|||OMG, are you actually suggesting that the government provide this disturbed individual with mental health care? Who pays for that...the taxpayers? Or are you saying they should just strip the insane of their rights, and throw them all into jail/sanitarium? Some of us liberals do admit the dude was a psychopath, which is why he should NEVER have been permitted to purchase a weapon. Why are conservatives blocking additional regulations that would close loopholes which currently allow insane people to buy/own weapons?|||Oh, so the problem with the Tuscon killings is that we don't lock up enough people in the insane asylum. Thanks for clearing that up, because I thought the problem was that kids, judges and politicians were being shot with metal slugs speeding from the barrels of easily obtainable and concealable firearms.|||Actually, what I saw on this site was exactly the opposite. It was the Rightwingers bustin' a gut trying to blame it on the left. How could you possibly have missed that guy who posted the same links over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... for DAYS.... trying to link the shooter to "the left?"|||The first heard about this the conservatives were yelling about how this was going to turn out to be an illegal alien. What did happen though is that people suddenly became outspoken about their disgust with the nastiness of the political system. And then, the first thing that happens is that Palin the right wing darling, issues an "Its not my fault' eight minute facebook speech. Instead of trying to draw the country together she's out there claiming 'they' are out to put a blood libel on her. If you have forgotten all that in just a few weeks maybe you are out of touch with reality, or just a complete fraud.|||What part of republicans using violent metaphors is a false attack? Regardless of whether the rhetoric is linked to Tucson, it is still real and still irresponsible. THAT is a real problem. And yes, the shooter is another problem. This isn't new to liberals.|||Liberals have the general idea that things that happen to people have nothing to do with personal choice and responsibility, but due to society, so it makes perfect sense that they attack the other side of the aisle, because it furthers their political stances.|||er... I've seen many more liberals than cons taking the approach you mention? wasn't it Reagan who put all the crazies on the streets because "he didn't want the gubamint paying for it"? all I see cons doing is saying "eh, it happens, so what, move on"|||You seem to be assuming that liberals are for gun control when most of us actually aren't. Just out of curiosity, are you able to function without making stereotypes? Because I don't see that you are.|||are you that out of touch with reality to believe that only liberals and all liberals acted in the manner you described in your question?|||You don't believe that we should toughen laws to keep the mentally ill from being able to buy guns? And you say liberals are out of touch with reality!|||yes,yes|||Liberals want to end our freedoms, like the Muslims|||The libs are half right on this issue. While blaming Palin and other political figureheads for the tragedy is ridiculous, there's a valid point in the Second Amendment arguments. Although I'm fairly liberal, I'm a responsible gun owner and a Second Amendment rights supporter. I will say, however, that it is way too easy to acquire a gun in this country, and the requirements for continued gun ownership are pretty weak. I live in Texas, and here there is no such thing as gun registration. That's right. I go to a gun shop, fill out the paperwork just the same as anywhere else, and ten minutes later I have my gun. No problem so far. After that, I'm allowed to do almost anything with the gun that I want. I can walk a block down the street and give a loaded handgun to a homeless man I've never met before--legally. It's *recommended* that I get something in writing saying that he now has ownership of the gun, in case it were later to be used in a crime. I'm in no way required to check his credentials, verify that he has no felonies or domestic assault convictions, or even know whether or not he is a legal citizen of the United States. I need no FFL license, and no records need be submitted to the state or federal government. For another example from my home state, Texas's "castle doctrine" allows a person to defend his or her home as they see fit. Guns are not required to be locked up or kept unloaded, which leaves the decision on how arms are stored and accessed up to the owner--as it should be. This does, however, leave a significant window of opportunity for children and unauthorized persons to access a loaded weapon and cause real injury to themselves or others, which does occasionally happen. There are penalties in place for such negligence, and for the most part, gun owners are responsible enough to prevent such tragedies. However, the castle doctrine extends the definition of "the home" to include a person's private vehicle. As a Texan, I may keep any number of loaded firearms at the ready in my vehicle. The only stipulation is that they may not be stored in plain view while the vehicle is unoccupied in order to deter theft. I may choose to keep a fully loaded pistol next to my driver's seat with the safety disengaged, if I so choose. While I consider myself a reasonable and nonviolent person, I cannot tell you that there has never been an instance where I would have brandished a firearm during a fit of rage or trepidation. While I know this about myself, and therefore do not travel with an accessible weapon, many residents disregard such precautions. I have personally seen guns brandished a number of times during the course of normal driving, and if I were the intended target, I would arm myself in defense without a second thought. This, of course, would drastically increase the likelihood that I would be shot at, or that I would shoot at someone else. The result could be something as simple as moving through a stop sign out-of-turn escalating into a gunfight. Indeed, such occurrences are not unheard of. These laws are a little out-of-hand, I think. Based on your logical person's perspective, that person should have brought up Second Amendment issues after their conclusion, which you call "strengthening our laws." Loughner obtained his gun legally, and did so with the list of black marks against him that you recited. There are two legal solutions: First, tighten the laws concerning gun control. Currently, you must have already committed a crime in order to be rendered unable to buy a gun. I think you see where a problem may arise there, although the counter-argument is that gun ownership is a right, and should therefore be free of prior legal restraints. Or second, round up any people who appear to be "disturbed" and get them off the streets, as you said. In either case, some personal freedoms must be infringed upon. Either citizens will need to pass some series of tests or training prior to owning a gun, or citizens with even an outside chance of violent behavior will need to be rounded up and confined. If psychology could yield 100% accuracy on who would commit a gun-related crime and who would not, the choice would be simple. However, there is a significant margin of error, so the reasonable solution seems to be tighter gun control laws, rather than confining thousands of people who in many instances pose no significant threat. There's plenty of room to debate that my gun ownership rights shouldn't be infringed by other people's mental illnesses, and that's a valid argument. However, I'm willing to jump through a hoop or two to allow people who don't present a clear threat to society to live freely. Getting back to your original argument, it's a shame that liberals took the opportunistic approach and made cheap, unfounded shots at political rivals during a time of tragedy. The arguments for stricter gun controls are entirely appropriate, though.|||They did all they could to MAKE IT HAPPEN, what more do you want? > The elected Democrats responsible for getting the shooter into the system KNEW he was very disturbed and repeatedly CHOSE to cast-aside the law to PREVENT anything being done about it. > The law REQUIRED these elected Democrats to AT MINIMUM report him into NICS which would have balked his gun-purchase but they REPEATEDLY broke the law to ensure he could easily buy a gun with money THEY GAVE him. > He had many run-ins with elected Democrat authorities who LIED to people reporting him so THEY wouldn't pursue it further. This specifically includes Giffords. She was told by local elected Democrats that Loughner was being handled even though THEY PERSONALLY WERE PREVENTING IT. No doubt the last thing to go through her mind (before the bullet) was shock to see a guy local elected Democrats dishonestly told her was in custody right there pointing a gun at her.|||But what did liberals actually do? The things you mention and when they can get away with it they place even more restrictions on law abiding citizens. Check it out, the white house is planning on using the AZ tragedy to play political games and appease the gun-grabbers on their side: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a> @ > BUG, This is the second time I've posted this for you, HERE READ IT Shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings, Congress passed a law addressing exactly this issue: Late in 2007: Congress Passes Bill to Stop Mentally Ill From Getting Guns http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con鈥?/a> In January 2008 President Bush Signed That Bill http://www.latimes.com/la-na-guns9dec09,鈥?/a> Also: The mad-man in AZ sent up several Red Flags and it's the local authorities that failed to do their job. Some FACTS: "Mental Health Warnings Preceded Rampage, as Arizona Gunman Likely Went Untreated" <> Read: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/10/men鈥?/a>|||Are liberals that out of touch with reality, or are they just complete frauds? BOTH. Any time something like that happens Liberals 1st response is not " Is everybody alright? ", its " Why are Cons so crazy? ".|||Never forget the motto of the Obama Administration: "Never let a crisis go to waste".|||I agree that they are frauds AND they're out of touch...|||liberals will never ever admit to their dissonance.^ see what i mean!