Ya'll need to chill a bit. Spanokopitas is a good dude, and he's just offering his opinion here.
Yah; I'm amazed at the amount of ado about nothing.
The shooter is a bad guy, sure enough, because he shot up a bunch of regular folks and killed a kid.
But Giffords? Roll? It's just a politician and a judge, for Pete's sake. Why all the hoopla? Shouldn't government legislators and adjudicators expect to get shot at when they ignore the will of their subjects? Isn't that what the Second Amendment is about? I know government enforcers certainly expect to get shot at when they trample the will of the people: it's why they hide their identities, carry heavy firepower, wear vests, and ride in armored vehicles. Why should the other two branches of the State be any different?
"Congratulations: the computers say you won the election. So: here is the power to tax away our income. Here's the power to regulate away our livelihoods. Here's the power to throw us in prison for doing harmless things you disapprove of. Here's the power to conscript our children and use them up in pointless foreign wars. Here's the power to send thugs to break down our doors in the middle of the night and murder us in our sleep. Here's the power to make radical foreign terrorists so angry at us that they kill us by the thousands.
"Okay...got all that? Can you carry it? You okay? Great: good luck. See you on C-SPAN.
"Oh--wait. One more thing. Almost forgot. Here's a bullseye to wear on your back in case we decide you're getting a bit uppity in the way you use all those powers."
Sounds fair to me.
You got a point.
and another post by one of the other dumphucks on the eastern side of the country.
