Dear Joe Trippi - I don't want to live in your 'free society.'

[wyldwolf]

Dear Joe,

In a FOX News piece you wrote titled "The Sometimes Tragic Price We Pay to Live In a Free Society," you indicate we should expect senseles tragedies like the Arizona massacre and attempted assassination of an elected leader from time to time if we want to live in a free country. I have to disagree.

Your article that seeks to excuse the right wings's heated gun rhetoric as "free speech" omits some key points: All free speech is not protected by the Constitution. Defamation is not. Causing panic (yelling fire in a movie theater) is not. "Fighting words" (those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace) is not. Most importantly, incitement to crime is not. It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a crime, and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Just as a child emulates the behavior of his/her parents, political people are influenced by the political leaders they back. Politicians and talk show hosts have a responsibility to temper their words because those listening take them seriously. When talk radio hosts and politicians talk about shooting federal agents in the head, when they advise their listeners and constituents to take loaded assault rifles to political rallies, when they state there could be "second amendment remedies" or succession from the Union if elections don't go their way, that is incitement to crime.

Tell me - if someone makes a death threat against the president, do you believe that isn't a crime and is protected free speech? And isn't a radio talk show host or politician speaking of "second amendment remedies" if a policy or election doesn't go their way the same thing?

Rhetoric like this should, at the very least, be rebuked by the leadership of the party of the person who speaks it. But it isn't.

Finally, Joe Trippi - the murder of a nine year old girl and six others and the attempted assassination of an elected official with weapons and ammo specifically designed to kill people in large numbers quickly certainly isn't the price we should have to pay to live in a free society.

-----------
Joe Trippi: The Sometimes Tragic Price We Pay to Live In a Free Society

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/10/joe-trippi-tragic-price-pay-live-free-society/#content

[stray cat]

1. I thought dems promoted civil liberties ie don't touch my junk......

[geek tragedy]

3. Unless your junk can kill 6 people, a fair stand to take. nt

[roody]

2. Free, my foot. Free to starve and die.

[CTyankee]

4. Correct! Free society my ass. This is the antithesis of a free society.

This is the beginning of tyranny, as the world's history will prove.

This man is sadly misinformed...

[peacebird]

5. I really miss the days of thoughtful discussions - letting each person speak their mind in peace

instead of screaming over them to try to drown them out. I miss the days when people could agree to disagree, but still respected the other persons right to their views. Back when we strove to find common ground instead of demonizing the other side....

I bet that we have more in common, more that unites us, than we have that separates us. If only people could tone down the rhetoric and stop the hate.

But I guess hate sells.

[Imajika]

6. So your really just advocating gun control aren't you?

"Finally, Joe Trippi - the murder of a nine year old girl and six others and the attempted assassination of an elected official with weapons and ammo specifically designed to kill people in large numbers quickly certainly isn't the price we should have to pay to live in a free society."

Crime rate is going down, not up. As gun control laws have been relaxed or abandoned, the national crime rate has dropped.

Turn this into a gun control issue and we will lose and lose badly. Gun control is a massive loser of an issue, the public hates it, and thankfully the Democratic Party has finally divorced itself from the anti-gun agenda.

As to the rest, is there any evidence at all that Loughner's reason for trying to assassinate Giffords is any more sane, understandable, or politically motivated than Hinckley's assassination attempt on Reagan? I doubt it. I've seen nothing so far to indicate this guy is anything other than mentally deranged.

Going down this road of crying about the "tone of the debate" is not going to get us anywhere. There is no evidence we have some epidemic of violence in this country because of the "tone of the debate" and this meme people are pushing is only going to end up with Democrats/liberals/progressives consciously or subconsciously self censoring themselves while the right continues to debate exactly as they are.

No, I want to ramp UP the tone of the debate on the left. I want more Ed Schultz, more Olbermann's, etc, and I want them to be more outspoken in attacking the right. This whole "change the tone of the debate" is garbage.

The good that will come out of this MIGHT be addressing mental health issues sooner, not gun control or trying to "change the tone of the debate".

[wyldwolf]

7. Of course I advocate gun control, and proudly so.

:shrug:

But the gun portion of my post was but a small part that I guess would only strike a nerve to someone who doesn't advocate gun control.

[Imajika]

8. You noticed...

"But the gun portion of my post was but a small post that I guess would only strike a nerve to someone who doesn't advocate gun control."

Yeah, I hate gun control. I confess. I personally oppose it and think it is politically toxic. The number of union and blue collar voters the Democratic party has lost by being associated with the gun control agenda is staggering. We are finally getting past this, and I hope the party continues divorcing itself from the anti gun agenda.

Just my opinion anyway.

[wyldwolf]

10. I agree gun control has caused us votes

My gun control advocacy isn't to take guns out of people's hands but rather to make certain weapons unavailable and to close loopholes that allow people to obtain weapons too easily. And make getting guns out of the hands of criminals a priority.

[Imajika]

12. I'm sure your perfectly reasonable...

...and someone I could discuss responsible measures with, but honestly, this is just not a debate that is worth having. The gun control agenda has cost us a ton of votes, poisoned the attitudes of many blue collar Americans against the Democratic party, and we aren't going to pass anything anyway.

This isn't time for a national gun control discussion. It is a lose/lose for Democrats and something we should avoid.

Again, just my opinion and I respect yours. I also did address some of your other points in my original response.

[kelly1mm]

9. Could you expand on what specific gun control measures you support

and think are constitutional?

[wyldwolf]

11. nope, mainly because I'm not going to let the thread get hijacked

:)

Carry on.