BREAKING: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, multiple aides shot at Congressional baseball practice

originally posted by: Grambler

But perhaps I misunderstood you earlier, and I want to make it clear that I do not think you would have advocated this guy shooting anyone, I just now think you are saying you are not going to pass judgement. If I misunderstood you earlier, I apologize.

That's about the extent of all that I was saying, you're right. Apology not necessary, I understand how these things can go.

a reply to: Grambler

Yea. I don't think there's ever truly been a reliable correlation between less strict firearms laws and increased firearms violence.


I honestly do think though, that technology like biometric trigger locks would give me as a gun owner a higher degree peace of mind, than it would give anti-gun advocates and measure of it.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: MotherMayEye

On mobile and haven't looked into it deeply.

But out of all of the letters to the local paper, and all of his Facebook posts, I don't recall seeing him specifically complain about any of the people on his list.

Its almost as if someone else gave him or put the list on him.

No proof or anything, just thought of that reading your post.

That is interesting. If he made a list...I would assume you would find some evidence of 'fixation' on those named.

Obviously, Jeff Duncan was at the park. Do you know if anyone else on the list was? If someone else crafted and planted the list...could it have been based on that so that it 'made sense?'

***

Or maybe the list is completely as it seems, and there is evidence elsewhere that Hodgkinson was fixated on those named, and that he compiled it. I'm not discounting that possibility. I just wonder why he didn't kill Jeff Duncan when he had a chance AND why he asked him if it was Republicans or Democrats on the field.

Wouldn't this attire have been a dead giveaway? On that note, what was Jeff Duncan wearing when he was allegedly questioned by the shooter in the parking lot?

Did it have red sleeves and 'Republicans' written across the front in red?





I won’t post a pic of Steve Scalise on a stretcher but it appears a ‘Republican’ baseball jersey was cut off of him.

How did the shooter NOT know who was on the field when they were wearing identifying attire?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: UKTruth

I would suspect that maybe he wanted to shoot the would be rescuers. Thats why he left Scalise there.

Maybe he thought about ammo and figured Scalise was dead or would die soon, so conserve ammo.

I dont think he knew he was walking into police fire.

He probably read too many combat web pages, and was trying to push the officers into the open while moving himself to a better position.

So he stood and walked into their kill zone without laying down suppressive fire first so he could move around.

Yes, perhaps.
Just spitballing really.
If he was intent on killing Congressmen though, he missed his chance, fortunately.
I would imagine it is difficult to think clearly with bullets flying.

a reply to: alphabetaone

As a staunch firearms owner myself, I have no vested interest, honestly, in more restrictions but in fewer. However, I also don't, though I am biased, overlook how firearms are being abused by completely irresponsible or psychotic individuals.

You hit the problem on the head. Firearms are not the source of the problem. People who abuse firearms to harm others are the source of the problem.

Ive taken a lot of flack from certain individuals in this thread because my choosing not to judge the perpetrator on his actions, in their view becomes one of condoning it. It is not condoning it, it is the cognizance that the guy, for whatever his misguided reasons, believed that SOMEONE had to pay for their crimes (whatever he thought those crimes were)...so he fought back in the only way he knew how to...with deadly force against what is likely completely unrelated persons. He, however, also paid the ultimate price for the decision to take things into his own hands...he lived by the sword and he died by the sword. I would rather live in a country (like ours is now) where a person, any person can have the freedom to make that choice and where they will face the consequences of those choices (as he did) than constantly being told on a daily basis what it is I can and cannot do; what it is I can and cannot say; what laws I may potentially be breaking by expressing my opinion (as evidenced by some people here who choose to view my opinions as admonishing the act and worse condoning it).

I will judge the perpetrator on his actions. He chose to destroy lives over political discourse, based on party affiliation. That is wrong, and I will call it wrong every time it happens. His death was the greatest punishment we are capable of inflicting, but it is still insufficient. He destroyed one man's life, almost ended it, and planned on ending many more. Even more heinous than that is the damage he was willing to do to democracy itself. Every Congressman on that field represented the will of their constituents... we can say what we want about whether or not they were doing a good job representing their constituency, but the fact stubbornly remains that they were there because enough people wanted them there. To try and remove them by violence is violence against every person who helped put them there.

That is terrorism... an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States of America. It is no less than what ISIS does in that respect. One life does not pay that bill.

I have to agree with you on the idea of freedom being more important than absolute security (assuming such a thing exists). But the two are not exclusive. This attack could easily have been much worse; for some inconceivable reason, somewhere in history, an intellect that would rival a rock... a retarded rock... decided that Congressmen were trustworthy enough to pass laws, but not to carry personal protection, despite their obvious risk of being targeted. Luckily, Scalise was there and as a ranking member he had security. But had he not been there, the results would have been akin to a massacre. The police arrived within 3 minutes... an excellent response time! But how many people can die in three minutes?

Whoever decided that US Congressmen should be prevented from defending themselves is the criminal in this case as well as Hodgkinson. Only they will not pay with their lives; they will not pay at all! They will try to use this disaster to try and further their despicable destruction of people they don't even know.

So yeah... I'll call you on it too. Hodgkinson deserved scorn and more than he got. But I'll also agree. We can't stop it by tightening down... we have to loosen up our grip on people's lives and allow them to protect themselves. The government is not Father, and it is not Mother. It is the source of most of our problems.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

None of the congresmen there able to carry weapons because of DC law? That law must change. Law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves.

a reply to: UncleDoc

That's what is being reported.

TheRedneck

I heard Mr. Scalise has improved and looks to live. His family will have something to celebrate today.

Late to the party......BUT now this.... He was the only one with an armed detail. I guess, he wouldn't be alive without them.

a reply to: MOMof3

Yes, he had another operation and was upgraded to Serious Condition.

His family may celebrate (I know I would!), but the political hatred has taken much from him... Scalise will never be quite the same. We have to stop the hatred now.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't believe I posted hate in any way. I believe it was a burst of fire that ripped through his organs that has changed him. And maybe he saw the Angels.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Or it could be that he was particularly pissed about a certain issue that they were all involved in, like a certain bill they were the key figures on, and just listed their names from that and didn't even know what they looked like.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
but the political hatred has taken much from him... Scalise will never be quite the same.

I think perhaps as much as it may have taken from him, it also may have given him something too. We always focus on the atrocity and never focus on what positive effects may have come from a tragedy. He may well have a heightened appreciation for family, for his core values in life, and yes for the types of people that would actually go to such lengths because of political partisanship (which btw I don't think shouldn't exist; in fact I find it necessary).

We have to stop the hatred now.

Well, we could start, perhaps, with candidates who don't find it appetizing to employ hate filled tactics to win an election. We could also vilify hate filled rhetoric from guys like Alex Jones, Keith Olberman, etc....I make it a point that when someone, anyone, that shakes in anger when trying to make a point, to not take their opinion too much to heart as their anger doesn't necessarily equal mine. In saying this though, I have to also recognize that for each single-sided hate filled rhetoric that exists (and likely always will as much as we don't want it to) there is an absolute need for the opposing side of that rhetoric....once that stops, balance is gone.

a reply to: MOMof3

I didn't accuse you of posting hate. I said

We have to stop the hatred now.

The burst of fire was caused by the political hatred poisoning Hodgkinson's mind.

Do you disagree?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck


The burst of fire was caused by the political hatred poisoning Hodgkinson's mind.

I feel as though I have to ask this question; do we know that? Or are we simply assuming it because in this political climate it makes the most sense?

a reply to: alphabetaone

I think perhaps as much as it may have taken from him, it also may have given him something too.

That is not a judgement any one of us can make; only Steve Scalise can make that judgement. To try to find the 'bright side' when someone is viciously gunned down without good cause is to dismiss the atrocity itself. I will not dismiss the attempted murder of duly-elected representatives of the people.

Well, we could start, perhaps, with candidates who don't find it appetizing to employ hate filled tactics to win an election.

I did that. I rejected someone who bragged about putting workers out of work and called a huge portion of the population "deplorables." Your suggestion only works if the same standard is applied to both parties.

We could also vilify hate filled rhetoric from guys like Alex Jones, Keith Olberman, etc...

I already ignore Jones, and have for years. Not sure who Olberman even is. I also ignore Limbaugh.

Add to that list Steven Colbert, Rachel Maddox, Kathy Griffin, Michael Moore, Don Lemon... I must say I find it somewhat disturbing that you only mention the right-wing loons, and not a single left-wing loon. There's plenty of loons on both sides of the aisle.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

To try to find the 'bright side' when someone is viciously gunned down without good cause is to dismiss the atrocity itself.

This is how problems start. I am NOT dismissing the atrocity itself and don't accuse me of that. It's abjectly false.

Add to that list Steven Colbert,

Including comedians in your list is disingenuous...anyone who finds it necessary to measure their political beliefs by the voice of a comedian should not even have the right to vote.

Rachel Maddox, Kathy Griffin, Michael Moore, Don Lemon...

The rest of this list though, I agree with...they should be non-partisan and hold non-partisan views.

I must say I find it somewhat disturbing that you only mention the right-wing loons, and not a single left-wing loon. There's plenty of loons on both sides of the aisle.

I think you should gauge your level of being disturbed though, by a greater degree of research, in this case knowing that I only mentioned 2 people Alex Jones, and Keith Olberman-

Alex Jones a far-right President Trump supporter

Keith Olberman a far-left anti-President Trump supporter

after which you should be disturbed or not be disturbed once the level of fairness that I was suggesting shows a bias in one direction or the other.

a reply to: alphabetaone

We know that Hodgkinson was a political activist, a Bernie supporter who regularly demonized Trump in particular and the Republican party in general. We know he left his home and business for 3 months and was living out of a van. We know he brought a rifle with him. We know he specifically asked if the people on the field were Republican or Democrat before approaching the field and opening fire. We know he was firing at everyone on that field.

I don't think it's in any serious question that Hodgkinson was angry at the politicians he shot, or that he targeted those individuals based on party affiliation.

I remember a comic one time had a line that went something like: "A guy posts on social media that he is going to break into a bank, the security cameras record him breaking into the bank, his fingerprints are all over the bank, he is caught inside the bank vault stuffing money into a bag, he confesses to breaking into the bank as he is arrested, and as soon as he gets outside, he is called a 'suspect.' No, he robbed a freakin' bank!"

TheRedneck