On Friday's show, the Reverend Ricky Burgess walked Rachel through the Pittsburgh alley that at one time was the most dangerous place in America. Reverend Burgess, a member of the Pittsburgh City Council, was making the point that the gun-rights advocates at the National Rifle Association convention across town should come to his Homewood neighborhood and see the damage gun policies have done there.
Mr. Burgess described for us the many relatives and church members who've been killed by gun violence. The place he loves has come unraveled, so that ordinary life includes what should never be ordinary. Consider the story of 16-year-old Lakeisha Lane last month, who lived to tell. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Lakeisha told police she was sitting on the couch in the living room of a home in the 6900 block of Kelly Street in Homewood when Mr. Marshall came in and asked her for a cigarette. When she told him no, she told police he pulled out a gun and shot her once in the leg before he fled."
The story gets four paragraphs, the journalistic equivalent of a shrug. "The only reason that people will say that it's OK to have these guns because they don't live where I live and they don't experience what I experience," the reverend told us. "You know, they have not seen their family members shot. If you see it once or twice, it will change your life forever."
Leave a Comment:
I understand your need to defend yourself and hunt, NRA members, even though I don't feel those needs. Now try to get out of your little boxes and try to understand what life is like in the inner city.
I am not an NRA member, but I still feel the need to have a gun to defend myself. I think we should enforce the laws we already have, which we don't.
I once spoke, at length, to a policeman about how he felt about gun control, and he said the same thing. Gun laws won't keep guns out of the hands of the criminals-- it will just leave the general population at risk. His take on it: Enforce the gun laws we have.
I have guns and I'm happy to register them. I am also licensed to carry a gun, licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and well versed on gun safety. I doubt anyone would steal my guns because most of them are so old, they won't shoot. The ones that do shoot are either hidden safely away, or up under my mattress where I can get to them in 5 seconds or less.
Yes, I'm a woman. And anyone coming into my house in the middle of the night without my permission is dead.
For those who wish to brand me with a political label, I am a moderate and a conservationist.
(((Dowser))))
Well said!
((((((Dowser))))))
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I feel the same way.
I have a gun for hunting and varmint killing purposes....and it is always loaded.
Since I was raised in a rural area where most people had guns in open gun cases or in gun racks in their trucks I have never found gun ownership unusual or something to fear in the possession of law abiding people.
Thanks, both of you, for your support.
Among reasonable people, there isn't much to fear from guns-- a healthy respect is in order. There are criminals out there, for whom no law is too trivial to break. Those two legged varmints are going to be dead if they enter my home.
The policeman that I talked with was a reasonable, decent man who saw death each and every day in his line of duty. I truly respect his judgement.
Take care dear ERich and MoCowgirl! ((((((((((ERich & MoCowgirl))))))))
I have to agree with MoCowgirl, ERich, & Dowser... My guns are for the safety of me & my family and also for hunting to feed my family.
The cities I live in have severe gang problems and other violence like robberies, home invasions, car theft, etc. People have even been robbed coming out of the grocery stores & malls in this area. I say cities because I was born & raised in the city I work in, but live in the next city over, which is also right across the street from the next bordering city, with a few more cities in the direct vicinity... (If you followed that...lol)
So needless to say, I'm scared to see what would happen if the laws were changed. It is our civil right to bear arms and should stay that way!!! It's not everyone's fault that guns have made it into the hands of people who cannot use them responsibly and for what they are made for...
Yep, 10,000 gun laws across the nation and the problem is the NRA.
Has nothing to do with the social irresponsibility of the parents of youth and the criminal mindset.
<sarc>
I'm right there with you Doswer, ERich, MoCowgirl and wildflower06!
the vast majority of gun crimes are not committed with legally acquired registered guns. You are confusing the issue.
Crack down on gang activity and unregistered guns. Leave the legal gun owners alone!
I have a 3rd degree black belt in Taekwondo and a 4th degree black belt in Aikido (military trained) and I still carry a gun, when I leave home, it goes with me.
I have a gun safe where I keep all my weapons except the one I carry, and I agree with Dowser, come into my house uninvited and you will not walk out, I am going to take it for granted you are there to do me physical harm.
I agree there are a lot of people who have access to guns that should not, but I also do not believe more gun laws will help in any way, put teeth in the laws we have now, set mandatory sentences for those who use guns to commit crimes, and enforce them.
There are two “gangs” here where I live, both are known to carry weapons, they have opened doors to homes and just walked in and robbed the people.
I will not live in a self made prison where I have to lock my doors before I go to bed for safety, if they come in my home, one of us will not be walking away.
Locking the doors at night does not a prison make.
Sure wish you would have taken Megan McCain with you on your little tour of Homewood.
what? She is representative of a important point of view, one that values human rights and lives. Does this opinion get home to you?
Megan McCain gets more attention than she deserves as a political pundit because she's part of a newer, younger set of Republicans that are socially more liberal than their predecessors. This is new for the GOP.
And she may not be a scholar, but she has a friendly open attitude and I think that there are only 2 of them-and the other is Steele-we should consider ourselves lucky.
And she's pleasant to look at.
She is cute. She would be really super-hot if she didn't look so much like her dad.
The piece on gun violence in Homewood was the most devistating indictment of the NRA oppositition to common sense gun laws. Ricky Burgess should be a national spokesman for this cause.
As a resident of the Pittsburgh area, I told my sister about the piece. She told me about how she almost got shot in Homewood several years ago. It had been a rainy morning and her car slid on a rain slick road into light pole. She had on a red raincoat and while she was dealing with the accident, the husband and son of a co-worker pulled up behind her and told her to take off that red raincoat. It was the wrong color for that neighborhood, red was the gang color for a different neighborhood. During that incident she said it was obvious that several people she saw were carrying weapons, and one was carry a sawed off shot gun. Another bad part about it was that AAA refused to send a wrecker into the neighborhood. She had to drive the wrecked car to the dealer for repairs. If it hadn't been for her co-workers husband the situation could have ended very differently.
With all that said, Pittsburgh is a great place to live.
I had several thoughts when I watched the videos on Saturday:
1) That clearly the laws in cities need to be different than laws in the "not-city." Whether we are talking about traffic, building codes, or guns. This is so obvious that it surpasses imagination that "common sense gun laws" aren't being passed. So what laws were proposed that they aren't being passed? I'm dubious that it can be laid on the "NRA opposes all gun restrictions" doorstep. I could be wrong, but I would prefer to see the actual text of the proposed laws, rather than make a purely emotional connection.
2) Rev. Burgess intimated that many of the guns in Homewood arrive there by illegal means already, though he didn't state that explicitly. Nor did he say that his legislative goals is to strengthen enforcement ability to prevent illegal guns from getting to Homewood (though he also implied it). What he did say explicitly is that he is opposed to "assault rifles in the city."
3) The piece left me with this powerful emotional impact, the decline and violence in Homewood. Outrage even. But with nowhere to constructively direct that emotional energy. If we want to change laws, we need constructive, sustained effort by many people. The emotions may provide the drive, but they alone won't make change.
John: There have been attempts at city v. rural restrictions. I know of Evanston, IL, and Washington, DC, both of which municipalities passed strict gun control legislation in the wake of terrible incidents of violence, only to have them rescinded by GOP (NRA-beholden) state legislatures. There are more, which I can't cite from memory. It's an ongoing, heartrending issue.
Reverend Burgess, of necessity, had to be circumspect in his language. As a City Councilman, he has to uphold the law as written for his municipality...whatever he thinks about it personally. Nevertheless, he made a powerful statement simply by walking down the streets of his home neighborhood with Rachel, as you point out. I hope these videos go viral and that many people see them and start to think about the needs beyond their own noses.
Sounded like PA law says, no making of any new gun laws. Maybe I misunderstood what the Rev was saying.
Philadelphia has been trying to stop straw purchases for years. Here's a story from yesterday - Mother's Day - Mother of 6 shot shot in a drive by . . .
Don't know if link will work so I took off the http: maybe it will show that way. If not, you can find it at Philly.com
www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20110509_Philadelphia_shooting_victim__died_just_trying_to_be_a_mother___sister_says.html
It's disgusting. A few years ago, we had more than 400 murders by gun in one year - more than one a day! They called us the City of Brotherly Murder. For sure, it was. Not much better now as you can still buy a gun on the street corner every day if you want.
If we city dwellers are ask to understand why rural folk need their guns - and I do understand that living in areas without a 2-3 min. 911 response time or where wild animals can attack - you would want to have your own protection, then explain to me why they can't understand the problem with straw purchases? Why would ending that would cause a world of hurt on the rural gun owner? Do they regularly purchase 10 guns a day?
And one would think that you could hunt or stop a wild animal or a wild human without the need of a 33 bullet clip or an AK-47. Just saying. I can understand their side, but then again, I tried to.
I have been suggesting for years and years that all hand guns should be banned. A hand gun here is any gun that can be fit into an oversize briefcase and is not single shot. This single shot provision is for women's self-protection.
But maybe allow assault guns as long as they are not machineguns.
The 2nd Amendment is about a milita for which few hand guns are needed but many assault guns are needed.
BTW, not all "arms", ie. weapons, are now covered by the 2nd Amend. And a good thing too. Examples-- shoulder fired anti-air missiles, back-pack atomic bombs, and poison gas are all banned now.
It seems that even the gun nuts can see that there has to be a line to be drawn somewhere between ok weapons and obviously not-ok weapons. Too bad they draw it in the wrong place.
Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 already prohibits sale or transfer of firearms in the manner that "straw purchasers" do it. The gun dealer is breaking the law, the purchaser is breaking the law, the person transferring and the person buying the gun are all breaking both federal and state laws already.
So my questions are: Is another law going to stop illegal gun sales or would it be better to make enforcement of existing laws easier, penalties higher? What about making the FFL holder accountable? What's the other way to "skin the cat," besides just passing another law making straw purchases "more illegal?" Obviously there is a monetary benefit for the people do the illegal activity, can a disincentive be created to curb the flow of money?
Cue the gun nut claiming that if the young woman had simply been packing a loaded Glock, she could have blown the guy away in 3......2.......1.......
...and then she could have spend years in therapy for killing somebody, poor girl.
And the Tea Partier will say...."Fine, as long as the taxpayer doesn't pay for that, or her abortions".
They make it soooooooooo easy!
"Nut" about sums it up. Both the suggestion that this girl having a gun would have prevented this and Mr. Marshall.
How do you defend against this sort of thing? The lack of character or psychological barriers or desperation or whatever it is that allows one person to shoot another over a cigarette (or any of the other seemingly ridiculous reasons I read way too often).
Eliminating guns doesn't eliminate the things that makes a person capable or willing to commit violence. Adding more guns doesn't solve the problem, either.
There are stupid, unthinking, violent people out there. Some of them become terrorists, some become drug dealers, some end up on Jerry Springer, but mostly, they just end up in jail, usually after killing or maiming someone. The goal of gun laws is to prevent them from easily harming or killing too many other people before their mistakes catch up with them.
I know this won't be popular but if you remove the terms African-American and Drugs from gun incidents, gun "violence" (even when including children) drops preciptiously.
Guns aren't going anywhere and common sense to one person is not common sense to another.
So, we should just eliminate African-Americans and drugs, then all us white folks will be able to happily own lots of guns without any of that "gun violence"?
You're right, you're not popular.
CHICAGO, May 24, 2010
Kids' Gun Deaths as Likely in Rural, Urban Areas
Murders Involving Firearms More Common in Cities, but Suicides, Accidental Shootings in Rural U.S. Level the Score (CBS/AP)
(AP) Children in the most rural areas of the United States are as likely to die by gunshot as kids in the biggest cities, a new analysis of nearly 24,000 deaths finds.
Not surprisingly, murders involving firearms are more common among city youth. But gun suicides and accidental fatal shootings level the score: They are more common among rural kids.
"This debunks the myth that firearm death is a big-city problem," said lead author Dr. Michael Nance of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "This is everybody's problem."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/24/health/main6513704.shtml
Pete,
I now live in a comfortable middle-class (and racially/ethnically varied) neighborhood, but earlier lived within the limits of my income (ie, in "poor" areas). I lived near white drug dealers and regularly saw a white clientele who contributed to acts of burglary, gang activity, and violence in the neighborhood. Conversely, our household also collaborated with blacks, Latinos, and Asian-Americans to combat the negative conditions we encountered. To generalize and suggest that "removing the term African American" will diminish the apparent incidence of gun violence has about as much intellectual punch as suggesting that kids who promise not to have premarital sex will not get pregnant. In both cases the point is that using a simple generalization about a population does not get at the real source of the problem, and it ignores the prevalence of others who engage in the same troubling behavior.
A related comment in other discussions might be to consider that whites are not immune to horrific acts of violence. Think of Catholic vs. Protestant violence in the UK; Columbine; the VA Tech shootings; the OKC attack on the Murrah Federal Building; and the list goes on. Put simply, the second you insist on focusing on the race of some gun users, you ignore the fact that the problem is still all too prevalent elsewhere in the country.
Another reason to avoid your generalizations is this: dismissing gun violence as a racial problem, or (by implication) a problem isolated to only some neighborhoods discounts the long-term possibility that such violence has a much broader impact than you seem willing to consider in your comment. Gun-related deaths affect the tax base (by virtue of people moving out, as indicated in Rev. Burgess' comments). A declining tax base puts greater burdens on the residents who will not or cannot move, and often leaves institutional "anchors" (schools, libraries, police departments, and so on) woefully ill-equipped to handle the challenging environment that remains. And it can affect us "nice" people who end up viewing the problem from afar. Groups that get away with violence and marketing drugs typically expand their territory, eventually threatening "nice" neighborhoods.
With all due respect, your short-handed assessment of a complicated problem not only comes across as having distinctly racist overtones (and you seem to acknowledge this with your defensive "might not be popular" comment)... it also does not consider the numerous structural challenges that are endemic to urban neighborhoods regardless of race.
No gun violence strikes all (but some more than others) but the numbers go down if in every gun shooting report you removed those two terms. When those words are removed our gun violence equals many european nations.
Also one must assume that those suicides in rural kids would have not done so but for the gun, and that is only an assumption at best.
On the other hand murders with guns was more what I was talking about and it seems that does affect "inner" city kids far more than rural.
His statement that GUNS are to blame for the neighborhood's demise is totally and absolutely a LIE. The destruction of the middle class of Pittsburgh burroughs has to do with political policies of the Republicans and corrupt Democrats who are bought and paid for by the corporations that shipped good paying jobs overseas to the enemies of progressive societies. PERIOD and any one that says otherwise are either liars or blind,deaf & stupid.
Rachel:
Great coverage and balanced approach. How do we get others members of the press and elected officials to cover and follow-up on ALL THE THINGS you report on?
Thank you for what you do. Who do I need to write to get you a promotion?Rachel for Vice President in 2012
The reporting of gun violence is going down the same rabbit hole as the reporting about poverty. The most you'll hear about how extreme poverty has become since B. Clinton's welfare "reform" is something along the lines of a tiny "filler" paragraph in the evening paper, noting, "Body of homeless man/woman found..."
Rachel:
Great coverage and balanced approach. How do we get others members of the press and elected officials to cover and follow-up on ALL THE THINGS you report on?
Thank you for what you do. Who do I need to write to get you a promotion?Rachel for Vice President in 2012
Where I live in rural Northern CA, there are many gun deaths and injuries.
There are very few African-Americans.
Guns have one purpose: to kill people.
Lynard Skynard " Hand guns are made for killin', ain't no good for nuthin' else, & if you like to drink your whisky, might even shoot yourself. So why don't we dump 'em people, to the bottom of the sea, before some ol' fool come around here and WANNA SHOOT EITHER YOU OR ME" ------------ PEACE
having been an army officer, I feel there should be no right to carry a hand weapon. they are not for hunting game, but for killing people.
I thought this was one of the best segments on TRMS. I was disappointed that it wasn't picked up by other sites. Huffington Post only put up the NRA part w/Meghan McCain.
I had a great conversation with my Dad about this segment and gun control this weekend. I love it when something I see on the show leads to discussion among my family.
Gun's should be outlawed and melted in the U.S. and anyone caught with a gun should receive severe and punitive sentences. To say the founders believed we should have guns is crasy even though it is in the constitution. A founder would be surpised that we ain't changed it yet!
Additionally add this viral quote:
Are we seeking power for power’s sake? Or are we seeking to make the world and our nation better places to live. If we seek the latter, violence can never provide the answer. The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
When do we learn, how many bodies have to pile up before we do?
I don't think the second amendment was meant to last century after century. We are at some point suppose to become civilized and shouldn't need to pack a gun where ever we go. They don't have even the police in England with them most of the time-and they have a much lower gun shot rate. But then England isn't running around like a bunch of cowboys on horses playing "shoot em up" games.
America is so new at being civilized, it will take a while to get the gun thing out of their minds. For me personally, I'd like to live free of guns and the people who have them under their beds next to my office. I think this whole militia thing is a big excuse. Americans just want what they want and they don't want anyone to take anything away from them. Like little children. Only a lot more dangerous.
By the way, make you next stop Benton Harbor with the highest muder rate per capita in the US three times in the past decade. On rages the drug war, achieving the exact opposite of the goal it intends: Keeping drugs and children seprate! In fact, it assures children a front line position in a maket place so dangerous the kids have to be armed!
it occurred to me watching the Reverend and Ms. Maddow drive around Homewood, why don't we treat gun ownership the way we do driver's licenses in that you have to go in periodically and demonstrate you're still capable? don't you also have to renew hunting and fishing licenses?
sure, driving is a privelege while bearing arms (again, note the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about guns) is a right, but we already suspend that right for people who don't meet certain criteria such as mental illness, history of violence/felony conviction, age?, etc. so it's not adding any sort of new restriction, simply enforcing the ones already in existence.
and oh yeah, voting is also a right, not a privelge, but the right wants to weigh down voters with all sorts of burdens of proof, so they should have no problem with it for gun ownership, as a single fraudulent voter doesn't pose any sort of risk in the way that a single unstable gun-owner with an assault rifle or extended magazine does.
Well said Tomm JOnzz. If only folks who vote on this could gather the courage to pass such regulations.
Because it is a right not a privilege. Get it straight.
another conservative with reading and/or comprehension problems, who doesn't or can't/won't understand the meanings of words.
You have your head in a dark place. You don't licenses a right. A drivers license is a privilege. Go ahead and make those socialist commie laws. Make the State your mommy and don't think for yourself. They will be happy to tell you how live and what to do in all matters, everything. Enjoy the China model. Idiots. Give them an inch they will take a mile.
& owning a gun is a privilege as well, & should be regulated like one , as the Constitution says
Arm Chair please consider remedial writing classes. Because your grammar is atrocious.
Perhaps he had an accident with a gun in his younger days and is still trying to recover. Those head wounds can be tricky.
... Florida??
so you support everybody owning a gun, even those with psychological illnesses and convicted felons? so you support doing away with voter registrations and letting anybody who shows up at a polling place cast a vote?
it is? gee, if only i had thought about that and mentioned it and explained the whole thing in my first post.
and anybody know what's the flip-side of Godwin's Law, the first mention of communism/socialism/etc. if there's not one, maybe we can call it J'Onzz's Law.
um, since i conceived the idea, how am i not thinking for myself? as for mothers... please.
ah, so you're the Seconder which Ms Maddow and Ms McCain were discussing at the convention. to what militia movement organization do you belong?
and again, tell me anywhere in the US Constitution where it says anything about "guns" or "firearms."
I'm sorry I have trouble with this article. I haven't lived back east since 1986 just after I retired from the Navy. I really don't relate to the gun issue on this particular street or how this one street or area in the United States relates to the rest of the country. I own weapons as many people do in my area. I don't carry weapons around with me nor do I go out of my way to shoot people. To the best of my knowledge none of my neighbors do either. If this area of the United States needs a gun law to control it's citizens then by all means make a local law. The very idea that some one in another state 3000 miles from me wanting to make a law that would affect my life astounds me. Frankly, I do not give my consent to be governed from three thousand miles away. Nor, am I or will I ever be a subject, surf or slave to a government. I am a US citizen by birth and consent. Don't ever tell me I am to be governed by a government I have not given my consent to. Hence, the real reason for the second amendment to the constitution. To remind government it exists only by consent.
Arm Chair Quarter Back said this -- "If this area of the United States needs a gun law to control it's citizens then by all means make a local law" -- I guess you got so mad you didn't watch the clip, the Reverend said several times the local law makers could not make a local law.
if he'd watched the clip, he may have gotten some of that icky stuff on him... um... whatchacallit... facts! yeah, he'd have gotten facts all over him.
so your thoughts on gay marriage are...?
and how far is it from you and the Pope or from God or whomever?
slippery slope question for the militia-man: you don't consent to be goverened from 3000 miles away -- meaning, i assume, you don't recognize the authority of the US government, even tho i believe it's less than 3000 miles (except Alaska and Hawai'i) -- so what about 300 miles? thirty? thirteen? what about three?
Well, I'm easy. I'll watch it again. Make sure I have it right.
I reviewed the article and it did not say they were not allowed to submit legislation. The councilman was blaming all his woes on the Republican party. What is happening here is the people in the area don't want some of these laws and have elected Representatives that do not want to intact this type of legislation. So the minority group wants the Federal government to become bigger and make laws on issues that are controlled by state governments. That's how we ended up with probation which was repealed. The federal government needs to get much smaller. Not larger.
Prohibition (Thought I corrected that. )
Yeah, I'm sure your little arsenal really scares the US government. They wouldn't need to bother with a SEAL team to take you out if you were the real threat that you make yourself out to be. You're not even worth the money for a Predator strike, big man.
potential Darwin Award in his future.
from the interview which he "reviewed":
Duh, then the process is working! That tells me that most people in that area don't agree that guns kill people! What is "gun violence" anyway? Aren't people responsible for the violence?
Lets see here....do we try to stop people from having any relationships because of "domestic violence"? uh NO!
Hand guns should be banned. The only guns that should be allowed are long and shot guns to be used by hunters. If the right pushes hard we just might see a backlash that forces gun owners to surrender weapons...something I'm not for.
Speak only for yourself. If you want to make the government more powerful that is fine with me. I don't aspire to that type of serfdom. The Government needs to keep in mind it has to fly right or we may end up with a dictatorial form of government like China. The way things are going now, that is not that far fetched.
You mean the dictatorial government that now can legally spy on you, thanks to Bush? Or maybe the dictatorial government that wants to tell a woman that she has to carry a child to term after being raped? Or would that be the dictatorial government that overturned the results of a voter referendum in Wisconsin, along with stripping unions of their collective bargaining rights.
When I think of dictatorial governments, it's hard not to think of repubs.
Good reply.
Guns obtained legally are usually not the problem either. The problem are the thugs, which by the way the people on the left never want to prosecute or put in jail, or for that matter hold accountable in any way for their actions!
I like the idea that I have some recourse if I am being threatened. I like being able to protect myself. Legally obtained handguns are not the issue.
Silly Katy & her teabagger statement that the "left" doesn't want to prosecute or hold people accountable. Katy please tell me have gun laws expanded or decreased under President Obama?
I'm guessing that Katy couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 10 paces if she even owned a gun. Owning a weapon doesn't confer instant proficiency. Too many people who own guns have never actually fired them or practiced with them, meaning that if they ever had the need to use a gun in self defense, they would likely be more of a danger to themselves than to a hypothetical attacker.
Well, you might be right, but the enemy doesn't know that!
I grew up with guns in the house (was required by my father's profession), but we were taught a healthy respect for them and believe me we NEVER touched them unless he was present and teaching us.
Whether I would be a greater danger to myself or the criminal, is a chance I am willing to take. The last thing I want is to rely on someone else to rescue me, knowing that the response could be slow. Don't I have the right to protect myself?
Don't get me wrong, we should do EVERYTHING possible to keep them out of the hands of criminals (including illegal aliens) and the mentally ill. But law abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves.
Well that explains a lot. Daddy must have taught a lot of things...
Maggie, really? It's getting a little silly now.
You have no idea. Silly left town a week ago.
Hi Maggie welcome back.
Thank you Maria :)
I was not angry over the suspension...I thought it would be more. I was angry that someone would comment about my kids to get a rise out of me. The suggestion that my kids secretly would own weapons and not to tell so as not to "set me off". Totally unacceptable but not against COH.
I got banned for simply being an Oregon Ducks fan(what I said to Katy was mild compared to a lot of things that happen here), good ole Tyler no like us at all.
I had my one day ban too. What amazed me is that Katy got nothing. However, the ban did convince me that I simply need to put some people on ignore. It's amazing how much better I feel with that simple click! Welcome back, one and all.
WB as well, & yeah Katy got nothing, even though she said much worse. I do not like being called a killer, & yet Tyler decided that was ok.
I appreciate the support...and wb :)
I know you like to engage in civil discourse Uffy...and I learn things when you do.
Talking to a fence post doesn't typically yield much though...we've all seen that.
Some people make an art form out of dancing on the edge with the COH. They manage to be insulting without any consequences. We should be able to do better.
We do better every day, embarrassing and humiliating folks like Katy by using actual facts instead of uninformed opinion. That's why they need to resort to personal attacks, because even they know their arguments have no merit.
You guys were the ones banned for personal attacks, not me! No embarrassment here or humiliation.
Oh we love you Katy...I'm sure you'll accept all of our FR's.
Uffy,
I have discussed this suspension other places on the vine beyond Dr. Maddow's blog. I've been told after a few suspensions one learns to "play the game". For me it's about self edit...a useful learning event indeed.
I suppose we need to accept that in all walks of life (and blog) people are going to spew @!$%# that makes no sense, offends and with malcontent baits and incites. It's been duly noted...that frequently one will be suspended for falling for the bait of a thread derailing troll.
I feel a Bush quote coming on...., "is our children learning?"
One good note would be the friends I've made over just this silly excursion of sorts. This newsvine adventure is not about making friends for me....but I sure enjoy the folks on my list. :)
Maggie, it is hard to convince others that you are above the fray when you post such things on your profile. Really? That behavior seems juvenile. When you talk about spewing hate, do you think you are exempt? Is it ok because you don't like me? Don't agree with me? Don't you think that is exactly what folks do with gays? blacks? Is it ok for them? Is it because you think you are right? Don't they think that also?
I don't expect a well -thought out answer, but to me it smacks of hypocrisy! Hate is ok, as long as you are the hater!
Ahh you took the bait....you looked....just testing my theories...
I am not fond of you...for your remarks about my children as well as other remarks...but I don't hate you Katy...I feel sorry for you.
You want to stand toe to toe with me on the issues...stop quoting talking points of the right wing and bring some facts into the discussion.
This doesn't need to be personal...but, when you spoke of my children...and how they may interact with me....you did step on my toes...any mother would take exception to what you said to me....but I don't expect you to understand that...I am sure you are not a parent. No mother would have EVER gone where you chose to go with me....
I suppose I should not be surprised that you bring Gays or Blacks into this conversation...but then...never mind .. it's you...
*smacks forehead...
Yeah Katy has that "play the victim" down pretty well. It is a common & consistent trait that these right wingers use & criticize at the same time, typical teabagger speak. Katy is also like the right wingers with her constant stuff like "That behavior seems juvenile" while saying "I don't expect a well -thought out answer" another classic teabagger speak. Notice how Katy used a personal attack while, of course, crying about others using personal attack.
I not only looked, I took screen shots and sent to the moderators. It was not very classy...
Believe it or not, these are my actual views! You brought up your children, and even the moderator agreed with me, but I even relented and said, Ok, if it bothers you that much, I will cease with that thread. My point to you was that children determine their OWN views. And, so they should. To think that your children will accept your values without question is naive. They will, of course, be footing the bill for the decisions that are made today. They may not like it.
I have my own views, and my own experiences, that whether you agree or not, are just as valid as yours. And at least 1/2 of the American's agree with me and I acknowledge that half agree with you.
I just always question people that have one standard for themselves and another standard for someone else. So englighten me Maggie, your hatred is justified why?
Well we will all be excited to see what the moderators say. The fact that Tyler agreed with you ... that I brought my children up first...really says nothing of your comment about my relationship with them.
You don't know me or my children well enough to suggest how we have discussed that issue and how they feel. You know nothing...my children have both told me they would never have a gun in their house...you suggesting how they may ...and not tell me...just so I would not be upset is not accurate or of your business.
Once again...I don't hate you...I feel sorry for you. We'll see what the moderators say....are you hoping they ban me forever Katy? Or justify what you say here? You need them to take your side in your reporting of me... will that validate your remarks? I understand....It's okay.
For you to say that half of America agrees with you....is just another outstanding remark...like you have a poll going?
Here's the deal Katy...go toe to to with me on the issues...and leave the personal digs out of the conversation...present your own ideas and not the rhetoric of the right...
And stay on topic .... Obamacare on the oil subsidies thread? WTF?
You honestly think you are above the fray? Look at all the comments over the months to you....really? You are not a victim...grow up.
Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, it doesn't matter your relationship with them. Hopefully they will be able to think for themselves, right? I just said if they are young, they may change, and if they are older, they may not want to talk to you about it knowing your views.
I am the right, Maggie. These are my own ideas. I don't listen to Rush (might surprise you), they are just reflecting what have the US thinks! They would not have ratings otherwise.
You should answer for yourself!!! And, not assume that my answers are the reflections of some pundit. This IS how I believe.
But, answer the question, why is YOUR hatred justified?
Any hatred is ONLY in YOUR mind...you can't pretend you know me...or what I think..what kind of question is that?
To be clear...I am of the mind that no hatred is justified. If I quote Robert Kennedy here you will only slam the Kennedy's in what I believe is your own hatred of them gleaned from previous posts you've made about them. I could quote MLK...but well never mind. I would quote Gandhi but, as he was a Hindu that would probably freak you out as well.
So in lieu of those guys...
Who are you feeding Katy? Which wolf are you feeding here now? You don't know me...or what I say beyond comments to you...you are projecting...and I am watching... and unfortunately responding...but only continuing...to again substantiate another theory I have.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here? Your ideas have ratings somewhere? Or the right wing rhetoric has ratings?
Have the US thinks....what? Have what?
Funny how folks think since a show or program has higher rating then it must be better or correct. There is no better example of this that Steven Colbert & him saying he NOW believes in global warming since Al Gore's book/movie was a big hit. I get the feeling that these folks would believe 2+2=734,241 if more people said that than people who say 2+2=4. Rachel said it superbly also when Bill O'reily said he was right since they had more viewers to which Rachel replied "if only my mom & my dog watch, that doesn't make me wrong"
One more thing....
Katy, Katy, Katy...my relationship with my children matters....period.
Some facts on gun ownership in the US and elsewhere.......
Maggie ---comment #20.5 ! ( I don't even want to quote that!). Unkind and beneath you. I am disappointed. I really think you are better than this.
Good, then stick to the issues, don't insinuate terrible things about her father.
Listen Ruth...you read the terrible things she has said to others and stop finding fault with what I say.
You don't know me...or what she has said to people....
You are obviously trying to bait me Ruth...you be her friend and play nice....you are on ignore now
I read it - and it did indeed sound like you agreed that she had said your children could grow up to have different values about guns than you do.
I don't believe for a second that warrants you implying something so terrible about her father, adn I think if you didn't dislike her so much you would agree.
The subject is certainly very upsetting to you, I can see - so let's avoid teh guns . . .but imagine for a moment that a parent who was completely against homosexuality said that her children would never . . .wouldn't you be taken back a bit?
Our children grow up, we do the best we can to teach them and love them; but it is true that sometimes they make choices we do not approve of and if they know we would disapprove they might keep those choices secret . . .we hear stories of children keeping teh secret of their sexuality, or even if it's not homosexuality sometimes we hear about them not wanting their parents to know they are living with someone, etc.
It happens - I don't think she was implying that your children were deviant or anything like that because perfectly normal children may take some time to share things with their parents which they know their parents' disapprove of.
Now if she had said something as if she were wishing something unkind I would agree, but I read the post and did not read anything like that in her tone . . .and even if she had said something that awful to me i would not say something so awful about her father. that is not something to joke about -- and if you were serious that would be worse. You got upset because she didn't know your children and made a comment about something children do which is often times quite normal and tehn you made a comment about her father, (who you also don't know), which is quite abnormal and quite abhorrent.
To imply that about a person is about the worst thing you could say and you didn't know him either.
I truely think if you took a step back and looked at what you wrote in 20.5 you would admit it was not worthy of you.
RuthAnn-595820 Ignoring author
Fantastic piece, Rachel and the team
Thank you.
There are parts of my city that resemble Homewood.
I can't profess to saying I've had family members shot, but I've had friends and friends of friends who have died from gun related violence, mostly relating to gangs or petty conflicts. Last month, my niece and her child were nearly killed because some thugs didn't like being told to get off her mother in law's property so they came back later and sprayed the living room (where there were kids) with bullets, hitting her boyfriend's sister in the back of the neck. There was a red line from where a bullet had grazed my niece's back. In '04 I think, my brother in law's 5 year-old cousin was killed in a drive by shooting, a stray bullet hitting him in the head while they meant to kill someone else. When I was still in high school, I've seen my share of drive by shootings and the resulting injuries of what bullets are capable of doing to the human body.
I feel the Reverend's rage and pain about what is wrong with gun violence in this country, and how people who've never encountered it can't see the danger signs of guns being so readily available, legally or illegally. I grew up angry at how easy it was for my classmates to acquire guns, much more when lunatics like Jared Loughner and Seung hui Cho get their hands on them when they shouldn't have. Seeing this show, I started crying when I saw the little girl walking around an area where there's been murders.
I'm pretty mild about gun legislation overall. The 'common sense' laws regarding the magazines and thorough background checks needs some working on. I've known people over the years that own guns legally, including my girlfriend, whom I know are either enthusiasts like Meghan McCain who like to go to gun shows or like to exercise their right to have one at home for hunting or protection. Maybe one day I'll learn how to use one, even though I've had too many unpleasant experiences with them.
You can say the violence I've seen personally over the years is a mix of things; the byproduct of the War on Drugs gone wrong, gangs and the drug cartels from Mexico (whom I'd add are smuggling a lot of their weaponry from the U.S.) spreading their violence into where I live in Texas, kids with bad parents, etc. Murder is uncontrollable flaw of human nature, although I do believe in we owe it to ourselves to do better in controlling the body count. It's not even a legal responsibility, it's a moral one.
It is suggested that one should not own a gun or have one in the home unless one has intent. Before I had my children I did not believe I could take another human life. If I were sure that either of my children were being threatened by another intending to do great harm...I would have intent and I could take a life.
Having said that....I would never own a gun myself and neither will my children.
You really can't say what your children will do once they are grown, Maggie. They may even grow up to be Republican, God forbid.
Perhaps they are already grown.....makes no difference.....
They may even own one now and just don't want to "set you off"!!!
You don't have what it takes to say anything about my kids....you don't know them...or how they feel or think about anything...
Go @!$%# yourself Katy for
They live in my house...with me still...and I know exactly how they feel about firearms... How @!$%#ing dare you make a comment about my children.
I don't care if I am banned....you are a piece of work Katy...making it personal....I once again did not address you and you butted in with a personal comment that while not a violation of the COH...is still a piece of @!$%# comment to me.
Your comment is ONLY MADE TO INCITE and AGGRAVATE....This is what you live for....my opinion is that your comments are disgusting here and you should no better than to address a mother about her children....
*know better
My children have nothing to do with this thread and you have NO right to speak of them Katy...none whatsoever!
Like most totalitarian tools, Katy feels the need to be a total hypocrite, railing against big brother government while supporting that same government in telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies; ranting against crime while wanting to have everyone armed, even if, as she admits, they may be more of a danger to themselves than a potential attacker due to lack of training; urging budget cuts to hurt the middle class while defending tax cuts for the rich and corporations; the list goes on and on.
My advice is to recognize what a bitter, ignorant person Katy is, and just let her stew in her ignorant hatred. People like her have caused, and are eager to cause, ever more damage to our society, our nation, our rights. I learned this lesson a couple of years ago with hatey, who accused me of molesting my children, while at the same time claiming he was so very, very religious. Of course, he also believed that killing 10% of the world's muslims was a good idea, because they were "bad" muslims. Mass murder on a historic scale was ok with him because it would make him feel "safe". While there are many on the right who seem to be genuinely good people, (a few of whom are regular posters here), there are some who are nothing but vitriol, Katy being the prime example. Like you, I believe she purposely says inflammatory things in order to draw a response, and as such, she is best ignored, as she obviously unwilling or unable to rationally discuss anything, and adds nothing of value to a conversation.
I've got your back, Maggie. Your kids are lucky to have such a great mom!
Katy goes after Maggie through her children because Katy has no valid points or arguments to make. Place Katy in the 'ignore' cesspool, it is the best way to deal with her trolling ilk.
I don't like to put anyone on ignore. I want to see the kind of tripe they are trying to peddle as rational debate....know thine enemy. Besides, some of their points are just so nonsensical that they provide me with laughs for the entire day!
Thanks Uffy...today, it's just not funny.
Thanks Dutchie...rarely a valid point from Katy...she's here to incite...discussing my children and what they may think or do is so far off topic it can only be taken to personally aggravate.
Lighten up! Maggie brought her children in the conversation (which for all I know they could be in their 30s).
My advice is to recognize what a bitter, ignorant person Katy is, and just let her stew in her ignorant hatred.
Bitter? Ignorant? Hatred? Almost laughable. I am none of those... just disagree with you guys. Perhaps you are projecting....
The point was, that even if people raise their children one way, that doesn't mean they will believe the same thing as adults. So, I fail to see how her (or anyone's kids) having the ability to grow up and make their own decision is an insult to Maggie or her kids! And, I can think of a lot worse things than owning a firearm for their own protection, or becoming Republican!!!
I think you guys are being WAY too sensitive....and making too much our of a little humor. Of course Sarah Palin's kids are a prime target for the liberal left, but I guess that is a different story.
Shut up Katy...I said my children would not own guns....that gives you NO right to mention anything about them becoming Republicans (off topic) or buying guns and not telling me....
You are way too INSENSITIVE....I have asked you before to leave me out of your bull@!$%#....I never said anything to you....and how people raise their children is not part of this topic.....it's not "little humor" as you put it...you are a @!$%# disturber and it's the ONLY reason you post here.
Sarah Palin's children also have nothing to do with this...there you go...deflecting and going off topic again.
It is hard not to be controlling, but a lot healthier for you Maggie. One only needs to look through the blogs to see how many times you have not insulted me or "never said anything" to me.
Grown gun-toting adults were once someones kids.
I never said anything you on this thread....we agreed at one time to stop this...talking about my children in any aspect is just not okay....YOU have no clue about my children...or their experiences...so please just stop...
I am not controlling....I want you to just stop your bull@!$%# and stick to the topic. If that's controlling to you...then maybe you should check the COH again.
That's fine Maggie. I am not here to insult your children and really don't think that is what I did. Maybe because it isn't an insult in my mind for someone to own a gun or be Republican.
But you might consider not bringing them into the conversation if you don't want it to be part of the discussion. I'm just saying...
But, because it seems to upset you so much, I'll drop it.
Katy said this --- "Bitter? Ignorant? Hatred? Almost laughable. I am none of those" ---------- From what I have seen Katy, you are indeed these things, you are bitter that Obama did something your beloved gwbushies could not or would not do. You are ignorant on how you say democrats "which by the way the people on the left never want to prosecute or put in jail, or for that matter hold accountable in any way for their actions!" & you are full of hatred towards half of the USA, that happens to call themselves democrats.
Ok. I guess if you are talking about the unemployment rate or gasoline prices out the roof, I guess you are right. Bush didn't do those things.
Having a different opinion doesn't make me bitter! You want to see bitter, read through a few of these blogs. You will see those democrats that hate the other half of the USA....yes, those called Republicans.
Katy264, reply in the appropriate place. This shouldn't be its own thread, it should have gone under #24.
...
Maggie-602935, you're suspended for a week for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
...
This is a really bad idea. Professing to not care if you're banned induces an eyebrow raise with us moderators.
Uffdaguy and Jason Williams, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
...
RE: talking about other Viners' persons:
You introduced them to the conversation. There's a line of acceptability, certainly - 'your mama' jokes don't have a place here - but when you share personal anecdotes, other Viners can comment on them without violating the CoH.
I agree 100% with Maggie. Katy has crossed the line with bringing kids into what is supposed to be an adult conversation. I admit I can be very childish, but I do not go after others kids.
Thank you Jason...specifically MY children...I spoke only of how I would not own a gun and that I know they would not either.
Her comments are over the top, out of line, and totally unappreciated.
Katy has done Katy's best to get a rise out of folks. Katy seems to be one of these mindless brainwashed folks who basically repeat what they hear from some right wing pundit. Katy spewing the words baby killer is evidence enough of that.
You guys just perceive it that way because you have an opposing opinion. You get upset because you disagree.
Sorry Katy, but I am upset with all of the fools like you who cry baby killers constantly.
Well, no need to be upset. I have said that I have mixed feelings about abortion. I just think there is a certain cutoff where you have to acknowledge there is a baby at stake. When you look at pictures at 20 weeks, it is hard not to have compassion for that life. And they die a violent death with abortion. I posted the medical procedures. Not pretty.
As much as you wish the right would not cry baby killers, I wish the left would acknowledge the seriousness of the decision and show some compassion for what is being sacrificed.
27 deleted, MariaBlumberg talking about how it would be 'nice' to own a cannon to 'throw [...] a broadside' at another user. Come on, Maddow Blog, you're a much better community than this.
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor. Keep any fantasies about harming another user to yourself, please.