Or maybe there are some of us in the middle who think that maybe this is a perfect opportunity to discuss Arizona's insane concealed carry law. Why do we license people to drive but in some states, don't even bother to check the mental capacity or training of someone who carries a FIREARM in public, concealed or otherwise? That isn't "personal protection", that's downright insanity.

And before anyone labels me a "gun hater", I work in a gun shop. I spend 50 hours a week surrounded by firearms. I own firearms. I see some of the people who carry around me and question their mental capacity but at least all those people have basic firearm training and are NOT mental patients or violent felons, as it's a requirement for a carry permit in Minnesota. While it's not a foolproof system, it provides a thin layer of protection between the public and lunatics walking the streets with loaded Desert Eagles, just itchin' for a fight to break out so they can play "hero".

Yeah, I was just curious as to why FreeTalkLive's proposition got under his skin when MrKhan's idea to use this as an opportunity to abridge or eliminate the Second Amendment didn't. Not all political opportunism is equal, I guess.

But you make a good point. I also think it's high time to reevaluate the way the mentally ill are dealt with in general. In Arizona (and in Virginia, too, I understand) a family member, teacher, or classmate may request that someone undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Despite the fact that both Loughner and Cho-seung Hui were sending up red flags left and right, no one ever did. While it may be partially due to ignorance of the law, I think the more fundamental problem is that school authorities just don't know how to deal with the situation and probably wouldn't have taken advantage of this privilege even if they were aware of its existence. The teachers of these two sounded at a complete loss as to what to do. It's worrying, and I really hope there's some reflection in the aftermath of this incident, because this pattern will continue to play itself out until something changes.

I just thought this was appropriate:

AZ recently changed the law to allow legal gun owners to carry firearms concealed without a permit, thus joining VT, AK, and several other states (although more limited in scope).  Dozens of states already allowed (and still do) legal gun owners to carry firearms open (not concealed) without a permit and that's been the standard in some states since before the nation was legally founded.

Is this law bad or crazy?  I don't know but it puts the laws in AZ closer to what most gun owners think of when they think of the 2nd Amendment.  AZ still has too many gun restrictions for me and so does the state I live in, NH.  However, it was a step in the right direction.  Maybe some day states like AZ and NH won't have any gun laws other than the 100s of federal laws?  That seems like a more Constitutional way to go.

As for driving, you don't need a Learner’s Permit in NH to learn how to drive.  In fact, you cannot get one as we don’t have Learner’s Permits in NH.  Insurance is option, although it certainly isn’t required.  The same goes for seat belt usage.  However, we do have driver's licenses.  I'd like to see the NH driver's license turned into to a license that lasts until people turn 70.  I get it, there should be a short test to get a DL but after that, you shouldn't have to get it renewed.  Of course, most people would get it renewed from time to time because they would lose their license, move and so on.  That is something that people from AZ are more familiar with than those from other states.

That was a very good piece.  What is interesting is that, in trying to comment on what happened in a constructive manner, it is hard to not get partisan.  This editorial is about as good as one can expect a person to get.  It still did show what camp the person was in though.  But the ending did touch on the issue here, in that it does look like that the drive to be partisan prevents a chance to be able to take a break to mourn the act of a madman.  One can add that "blood libel" talk and playing the victim card also in response is more of the playing politics here, but to harp on that is again to miss the bigger picture.  There needs to be times to turn off being a partisan animal and be human.

I did give that a thumbs up and save to favorites on YouTube.

Agreed. It was very well said. I'm not sure that the montage in the background had a lot to do with what he was saying, though. It would have sufficed to just show a big picture of Paul Krugman, but that might have violated Canadian obscenity laws.

Regarding Palin's response, do you really think she played the victim card? It seems to me that she was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. People castigated her for removing her Magic Map of Inspiring Evil from the SarahPAC site in the wake of the shooting; they would have done the same if she had been so "callous" as to leave it up. Similarly, a lot on the left have pounced on her use of the term blood libel, but it smells pretty trumped up when so many of those same people have also used the term outside of its historical context. (Most notable here is Andrew Sullivan, whose Palin obsession is second to none. The guy took months away from his blog to investigate Trig Palin's true parentage; I still laugh whenever he denounces "birthers".) And the common refrain from ABC to CNN to MSNBC is, "Oh, that Palin! Somehow she's managed to insert herself into this story! What a gloryhound!" Yes. I'm sure those networks constantly mentioning her name in the same breath as Loughner's has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I'm no terrific fan of Sarah Palin's. She strikes me as a total lightweight, sort of a less eloquent Obama. Call me crazy, though. I think anyone has the right to defend themselves against baseless accusations of inciting murder. If it were just a fringe thing in the darkest corners of the internet, she could have - and probably would have - ignored it. But it was front and center in the New York Times and elsewhere. So, again, damned if she did and damned if she didn't.

Also, I do know that a partisan rift can result in REAL ugly opinions forming, like the time where my thoughts of you being an uberawesome person on here getting tanked, because of what I was reading in a political thread.  That is NOT good.  This site is for VIDEOGAMES.  Why have an offtopic area topic cause changes in opinions?

Also, I do know that a partisan rift can result in REAL ugly opinions forming, like the time where my thoughts of you being an uberawesome person on here getting tanked, because of what I was reading in a political thread.  That is NOT good.  This site is for VIDEOGAMES.  Why have an offtopic area topic cause changes in opinions?

Well, there are people on here who are at each other's throats because of their choice in video game consoles. I guess it helps to keep in mind that disliking a person because of their political views is roughly as nonsensical as that. Unless they're supporting the Wii or something, I'd just shrug and move on before getting upset.