Mass Shootings

GOP Lawmakers Attacked in Shooting at Virginia Baseball Practice. Update: Shooter Identified

A gunman opened fire on a practice game outside of Washington, D.C., this morning.



Update: Law enforcement has identified the shooter James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois, according to The Washington Post and other media outlets. On Twitter, Post reporter Greg Miller notes that Hodgkinson is "an avid letter writer to the local paper in Belleville, many of them critical of GOP economic policy" and that the alleged shooter's social media "amounts to extended screed against Trump."

Update: In a statement this morning, President Trump said that the shooter has died from injuries sustained during the firefight. "Authorities are continuing to investigate the crime. And the assailant has now died from his injuries," the president said. Trump's full statement is online here.

A shooter opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing baseball in Alexandria, Virginia, this morning. Among those reportedly hit during the attack was House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and at least one congressional aide.

A lengthy shootout with Capitol Police ensued, and Alexandria police say they have the shooter in custody, but have not released further details. All of the victims are reportedly in stable condition.

Witnesses, including Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ken.) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.), described a grisly scene to reporters this morning.

"It was a killing field," Paul told CNN. Scalise reportedly dragged himself off the field after being shot in the hip.

Republican lawmakers were practicing for the annual bipartisan congressional baseball game at a location they have been practicing at for several years. The attack happened during batting practice.

Flake said the shooter "had a rifle of some kind. It was obviously a large gauge rifle" and described the attack as lasting for roughly 10 minutes. Flake estimated that more than 50 shots were fired.

Flake also said he assumed that the GOP lawmakers were purposely targeted. "It looks like only one shooter. You gotta assume he knew what he was doing," Flake told CNN. No official statement as to the shooter's motivation has been released.

Witnesses have said that at least one member of the security detail was wounded in the attack.

"Nobody would have survived without the Capitol Hill Police," Paul said on CNN this morning. "It would have been a massacre without them."

Reason's Meredith Bragg was nearby and took the following photos of the crime scene.

Meredith Bragg/Reason
Meredith Bragg/Reason
Meredith Bragg/Reason
Meredith Bragg/Reason
Meredith Bragg/Reason
Meredith Bragg/Reason

This story is developing.

NEXT: Defending His Honor, Jeff Sessions Highlights His Dishonesty

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sen. Flake said the shooter “had a rifle of some kind. It was obviously a large gauge rifle”

    And people say the Republicans are the pro-gun party.

    1. You can tell it’s a large-gauge rifle because of the thing in the back that goes up. Any bets on whether it was an AR-15?

      1. There really are such things as “large-gauge rifles”. They’re double-barrelled black powder rifles used by hunters in Africa in the 19th century. Not that I think that’s actually what the shooter had.

        1. Going postal with a howdah at least gets you style points in my book.

          The big ones weren’t described in gauge, but in bore.

        2. Probably meant that it did not seem like a .22 rifle that has a very distinct sound difference from a .30-.06 or 7mm type hunting rifle.

          1. Yeah, I know what he meant. But I also know what people mean when they say ‘clip’ even though it’s flat out wrong.

          2. Its a well established fact that bullets seem much larger and more powerful coming at you than they do going away from you. 🙂

            1. to paraphrase Bill Withers.

          1. Not with that 10. IP block I didn’t.

            1. I stand corrected. Company got IP filters now and I can’t see it until I get home. Sorry for teh false disparagement.

          2. Knew that was comin’…as it should be, though politicians are larger (though neither smarter nor more moral) than ducks.

            1. And no duck has ever played softball on my dime.

      2. It had a compass in the stock, and this thing which tells time.

        1. Obvious tools only used by military snipers and totally inappropriate for civilians.

        2. You’ll shoot your eye out.

      3. Reports say it was an M4, but it wasn’t a military select-fire M4. The designation “M4” isn’t trademarked, so a lot of manufacturers use it on standard semi-auto AR15s as well.

        So. Typical .223 cal./5.56mm rifle. Not “high powered” and definitely not “large gauge.”

      4. One witness said it looked like an AK-47.

      5. One witness said it looked like an AK-47.

        1. Another said it looked like a dildo though, so who can be sure.

          1. Yeah, but he says that about everything.

    2. Especially since larger gauge means smaller caliber.

      1. Not really. In common usage a twelve gauge shotgun is described as larger than a twenty gauge, even though the 20 gauge has a higher number.

        The usage makes total sense once you understand where the measurement of gauge is derived from.

        1. Not to belabor the point, but that is essentially what he was saying. That there is an inverse relationship between “gauge” number and bore size.

          1. Bear, I understand what he meant, but what he said is not the same thing. He said “larger gauge means smaller caliber.” This is, as a matter of common usage, inaccurate.

            Higher gauge = smaller bore
            Larger gauge = larger bore.

            1. Talk to any shotgunner and ask them which is larger, a twelve or a twenty gauge. None will reply ‘twenty.’

        2. As fraction of a pound; 12 gauge = 1 1/3 ounces. 20 gauge = .8 ounces

  2. Mister, your’re no Lee Harvey Oswald.

    1. Was Dan Quayle the shooter?

      1. Only if he used a rifl.

        1. No no. It’s spelled rifel. Damn public school education.

          1. Wrong, it’s spelled rifele. Because the word ends with the letter e.

            Silent doncha know.

  3. Are these the morning notes?

  4. This story is still developing.

    In newsrooms across the land, fervent prayers are being uttered “Please let this story fit my favorite Narrative!”

    1. “Right-wing shooter, confused, targets own”

      1. He could be pissed about the non-repeal of Obamacare.

    2. My favorite narrative will be another Republican politician shooting the weaklings in his own party for failing to repeal the 14th Amendment and reinstate coathanger abortions. Is there a hat I can put a dollar in?

      1. No, but you can fuck off Hank. You say the stupidest shit.

        1. Izzat you Eddie? Somebody get Ed Hominem here a butthurt form. Make that two! I’m pretty sure Scalise is feeing the Bern too.

    3. Congratulations on being the first here to politicize it.

      1. No, the guy who tried to kill politicians whose policies he disagreed with was the one who ‘politicized it.’

      2. Congratulations on being the first here to politicize it.

        Congratulations on pretending it doesn’t happen.

      3. Yeah Tony, you and your progtard buddies never do that do you? Its not just time to politicize it it’s time for a crackdown on progressives.

      4. I was merely making an observation, which I am confident will be borne out by events.

        I’m sure that there was relief and chuckling at Fox News when it turned out that the guy was a Bernie Bro. And disappointment at MSNBC. What do you think?

        1. It was obvious that this would be the case. Republicans tend to be far more law-abiding then progressives, who were all seditious criminals of their core.

    4. They quit praying a long time ago, now they practise the “god helps those that help themselves” form of journalism.

  5. Standing by for announcement of the navy’s newest ship, the USS Steve Scalise. Or do you have to take one in the head to get that honor?

    1. Or do you have to take one in the head to get that honor?

      I’m not sure what the criteria is. Reagan got a ship named after him and he wasn’t shot in the head. Meanwhile Gabby Giffords was shot in the head but no ship for her.

      1. You were being sarcastic, right?
        “USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10) is an Independence-class littoral combat ship of the United States Navy” – Wiki

        1. Of course a woman gets the littoral ship.

          1. Right, it’s one of those new stealthy designs…impossible to find.

            1. Then how does the crew get aboard?

            2. Like Wonder Woman’s invisible plane.

          2. Also, something something, little man in a boat, something something

          3. A ship designed to enforce Wesley Livsey Jones’ coastwise navigation laws, no less. Ah, the rough and tumble of politics as she is!

            1. Goddamn you’re a fuckbag.

        2. Just ran across this:…..-gun-free/

          1. “Having this mighty warship be 100% gun-free not only helps to honor its heroic namesake, Gabby Giffords, but it also helps the Navy to steer clear of promoting a culture of violence,” said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus

            I think at this point someone just needs to put the US out of its misery. It’s been a good run but it’s time for the adults to make a new start.

            1. There is absolutely zero chance that story is real ^_^

              1. Oh shit. Dang, they’re good. And it was totally believable up to that point.

              2. “UPDATE: Since this story first appeared, Giffords has reportedly been hijacked at gunpoint from its pier at Austal USA’s shipyard. The City of Mobile Police Department is asking anybody with information about the theft to contact the department’s Crime Stoppers line at 251-555-7000.”


            2. Duffelblog is like the Onion for the military set.

            3. A think the culture of violence is half the point.

        3. No, actually I was being ignorant. As in I didn’t know they had named a ship after her.

          The funny thing is just as I clicked “Submit” I thought to myself “Gee, I hope they haven’t actually named a ship after her because if so, I’m gonna be hoisted by my own retard.” Oh well. Have they named a ship after James Brady?

          1. “Have they named a ship after James Brady?”

            No he got a bill. And a story… about a lovely lady… (and so on)

            1. How much was the bill?

      2. JFK took a disputed number of headshots and got two carriers named after him.

        1. I like this incarnation of your handle

    2. The USS Steve Scalise will end up costing $70 billion and will not actually be buoyant.

  6. Nobody would have survived without the Capitol Hill Police,” Paul said on CNN this morning. “It would have been a massacre without them.

    So the libertarian-leaning small-govt R solution to ‘security’ and ‘self-defense’ is – armed bodyguards on the public payroll for the well-connected?

    1. How’d you come up with that? Did Paul announce that as his policy?

      1. Why does he need to announce it? They’re being paid already and obviously ‘Capitol Hill’ extends to a baseball field in Alexandria with critters doing ‘personal time’ (not govtl) stuff.

        No pol is ever going to announce ‘we need double standards and hypocrisy rather than personal responsibility’ or ‘Personal responsibility for thee but not for me’. Their mere acceptance of that when it is the status quo is damn good evidence that that IS their policy

        1. High profile targets attract assholes who want to do them harm. That’s pretty much a fact of our society. I don’t think it’s unlibertarian to accept some level of taxpayer paid protection to select public figures in exchange for the security that it provides to our basic system of governing. We want less government, but we want that government to be stable so it can protect liberty and property and access to the courts.

          1. I don’t know – there’s something to be said for a government so scared that its afraid to do anything but the bare minimum.

          2. Nobody made them be high profile public figures. I say outside of activities necessary to the duties of their offices, they should pay for their own security.

            1. Damn straight. Any politician powerful enough to attract assassins (a) deserves it, and (b) can pay for his own protection.

              1. Eh, you don’t need to be powerful to attract assassins. Even (especially?) a flawlessly ethical public figure could get a target on his back.

                Assassins aren’t the public’s conscience, executing the deserving. They’re usually nutcases who just want to kill people they saw on the TV.

                1. See? I knew TV would come to no good.

              2. Fair enough in principle but you can be damn sure that were an actual small government politician ever to exist, that guy would be the prime target of all nuts as drummed up by the media.

                Calling for less handouts will certainly earn you the hatred of crazies and if that that guy did exist, I would have no problem with a few of them having security and they should definitely arm themselves.

                1. If (all/most) government functions were handled by private entities, there’d be no more assassinations of their CEOs than there are now of those greedy selfish corporate CEOs.

          3. Bernie seems to be no slouch at attracting force-initiating assassins… as loyal followers.

          4. As a child I thought assassination was fair game as part of politics. When I heard the word I figured I was right, because their not calling it murder meant it was different, and, I assumed, less serious or even flat-out OK as long as you didn’t get caught or it couldn’t be proven it was deliberate. Since assassinations were taught as part of hx, I figured they were just as legit as elections.

        2. Security was there because Scalise is the Majority Whip. Apparently those in leadership roles get extra security. If he was a golfer, not a softball player, this might have turned out exactly like Rand feared.

      2. While I’m not happy old Rand resorted to the “thank God for our courageous boys in blue” trope, I also choose to read between the lines of the more lengthy quotes from him on today’s event. Saying things like “sitting ducks” and “killing fields” makes me infer (probably wrongly) that some of the congresscritters might wake up and say “if we’d had a few of our own guns with the scary things in the back that go up, maybe we could’ve fought back.”

        1. In one of the reports I read, one of the medically-trained Congressmen, I think the guy from Ohio, said that it was “like being back in Iraq — but without my weapon.” Which implies that he really wished he had his weapon then. Don’t blame him at all — it should be everyone’s right.

    2. Perhaps if Reason would have put in the rest of Rand Paul’s statement, assholes like JFree wouldn’t be posting stupid shit.

      Paul said the only reason the Capitol Police were there is because Scalise was present – the police only show up when a top Congressional leader is around.

      Left unsaid is whether anyone would have been strapped had Scalise not been there. Kinda hard to practice baseball while carrying a gun though.

      Obviously a hate crime.

      1. It’s also kinda hard to be carrying a gun when your job takes you into DC on a daily basis.

      2. I carry a gun when doing a lot of physical things — riding, farmwork. If I was a Congressman doing a charity ballgame, I’d definitely carry there. I really wouldn’t be happy to go against an AR with a small concealed carry pistol, but it would have at least been good to make him keep his head down while people ran for cover, and to keep him from closing on the dugout and just slaughtering everyone there.

    3. Do you ecpect Paul to say, “Sure they saved our lives, but the Capital Police really should not have been there”? That would be rather churlish, at best, under the circumstances.

      1. This.

        Based upon current reports those two cops carried on an extended gun battle with the shooter. And I’m guessing they only had pistols. Pistols against a rifle, at more than a few paces takes serious balls. At anything over 25 yards, pistol vs. bolt action rifle my money is on the rifle. Make it an autoloading rifle and I’ll give you odds.

        1. Obviously not a Clint Eastwood fan.

    4. Ok, for real? Think about this for a second. Who in their right mind brings a gun to baseball practice let alone has it on their hip while they’re at bat. At best it would be in your vehicle, and that’s probably not something you’re going to be able to get to within a few seconds.

      Also, they’re in Washington D.C. which isn’t exactly gun friendly although I wager congresscritters get a general pass on those regulations.

      Having police present at events isn’t so unusual at all, and yeah in this case they did their literal job of serve and protect. By all means critique the police when they’re pulling shenanigans (you know, the place with all the goofy shit on the walls?) but pretending that all of the Republican law makers should have been armed to the teeth at a baseball practice makes you sound like a wing nut of the exact sort the Democrats make all Republicans out to be.

      1. My bad, Alexandria Virginia. I know nothing about Virginia gun law.

        1. VA is still shall-issue, though the trend of being ruled more and more from Fairfax County is a serious threat to that in the future.

          1. What can Fairfax do? I thought the Heller case made local gun regulation laws moot.

        2. The ball field was in Alexandria, but the congresscritters work in DC, and most of them live in DC, so DC law is relevant even though they crossed the river into Virginia.

      2. “Who in their right mind brings a gun to baseball practice let alone has it on their hip while they’re at bat.”

        Anyone that takes the “it takes a good guy with a gun” rhetoric seriously. I mean really, the whole argument against “gun free zones” is that you’re making yourself a soft target. So if you’re serious about that, then yeah, you don’t disarm.

        1. No one sane is going to play baseball with a gun on their hip, nonsense strawman arguments aside. If you’re a ‘serious’ gun owner, you won’t have a gun on you while playing a sport. There are plenty of other arguments besides soft targets involving school zones, in that natural rights don’t usually have zones where they don’t apply for example. I imagine you probably just don’t care much for natural rights, though.

          1. You probably don’t want to wear a gun while at bat, on base, or in the field, but everybody spends half the game on the bench.

            1. True enough, but are you suggesting that someone leave their gun unattended in the dug out while batting? Like I said, common sense precludes doing this. Especially since, as noted, there were police present. I could understand being a little concerned as a congressman at an open field without police protection, but they had officers on site so leaving one’s weapon in the truck would be the ‘wise’ move for most humans (assuming anyone even had one at all, which seems…unlikely but possible).

              It’s a rather pointless argument though, ultimately no one was killed so thank god for that. The police did a good thing.

          2. I didn’t say “serious gun owner”, I said “if you take the […] Rhetoric seriously”. You can be a perfectly serious gun owner and think it’s a rubbish argument.

        2. No one should take rhetoric seriously.

        3. Jose Canseco?

      3. My comment is more about the easy acceptance of oligarchy and double standards – not about guns. And yeah – I realize that his quote is more a product of heat of the moment than anything deeply considered. But still – that easy instinctive acceptance of a circumstance that is completely alien to 99.99% of daily life outside the mover/shakers circle should be a warning about how quickly elected officials become simply out-of-touch with everyone else’s reality.

        My own first thought (which I didn’t post) was ‘would ANY of this have happened if we just picked critters randomly (sortition) rather than electing them and investing a lot of meaning/significance into electing them’. Would some armed nutjob see them playing baseball as some evil cabal that they need to thwart? Would gummint give a shit if they live/die? Would they be socializing on a partisan basis?

        Not – golly everyone should pack heat everywhere. That whole conversation bores me.

        1. Maybe, or maybe not, but who do you put in charge of the selection committee to choose random individuals to serve in congress? Perhaps the old wise man on the hill?

          1. It worked in Athens way back when (it was Sparta not Athens which had ‘elections’ then). It works for lotteries. It works for jury notification. And for pretty much everything that county clerks do. And purely statistically, it is damn near impossible to replicate/manipulate something into appearing random when its not if the sample size is big enough and the outcome is known – esp when every stats class in the country will use that outcome as a way to learn about probabilities and randomness.

            ‘Those who would manipulate’ want to keep elections in place. They would oppose random selection as even an option (eg count non-votes and NOTA as votes for ‘random’) in elections. So yeah – it’s entirely hypothetical and won’t happen.

        2. To be clear, the Capitol Police were only there because of the Minority Whip. Leadership gets security, the other critters don’t.

        3. “Oligarchy”
          You really should be st infowars, it’s more You’re style.

          1. You’re spelling is atrocious. So there.

            1. Blame the iPhone. Some of us have jobs and have to post from phones.

      4. Ok, for real? Think about this for a second. Who in their right mind brings a gun to baseball practice let alone has it on their hip while they’re at bat.

        Why would that be a problem? Your strong side is to the rear when you bat, so the pistol’s not going to get beaned by a bad pitch (not that it would matter if it did).

        If I was a Congresscritter, given the current political climate, I’d be inclined to carry everywhere, including baseball practice.

        Actually, I do carry almost everywhere, but I don’t play baseball. I carry when riding, when doing farm work — a lot more down-and-dirty stuff than a low-stress charity baseball game.

        1. Ever slide into home plate with a .357 on your hip? How’d that work out for you? I’m not saying it can’t be done, I’m just saying it’s a retarded thing to do for a huge variety of reasons, not the least of which is your gun leaving the holster or someone grabbing it on accident and shooting either you or themselves with it since baseball is in fact a contact sport and shit happens.

          Riding by yourself on your farm with your gun is an entirely different situation, obviously, but I don’t think any varmints are going to be attacking on a baseball diamond. On the balance of probability you’re more likely to shoot yourself than the odd crazed gunman in such a situation.

          1. I’ve been bucked of a horse with a .357 on my hip. How’s that?

            You wear a level 2 retention holster or better and the gun’s not going to come out on a slide into home plate. I’d be careful not to slide on that side, though, because it would be like sliding with a rock in your pocket.

            Varmints aren’t going to be attacking on a baseball diamond, but, obviously, crazed leftists are.

      5. Who brings a baseball bat to a gun fight?

  7. I know we don’t have any info on the shooters political affiliations so I won’t presume, but isn’t this the sort of thing the D’s want people to think that R’s want to and will do with their guns?

    1. He was a good Democrat – a Bernie Sanders supporter – according to television news.

    2. That’s the thing about those mixed-economy kleptocrats and their initiation of force; they can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Have the Dems disowned the shooter, passed him along to the Greenies?

  8. Flake also said he assumed that the GOP lawmakers were purposely targeted. “It looks like only one shooter. You gotta assume he knew what he was doing,”

    If a guy shoots 50 times over 10 minutes and doesn’t kill anyone, maybe we don’t have to assume that.

    1. In real life outside a range, it’s very hard to shoot a rifle and hit the (no doubt moving) targets you’re aiming at, especially if it’s a rapid fire semi-auto and you’re an expert.

      1. I hear them rapid-fire semi-autos can fire a 30 clip magazine in less than a second!

      2. Even harder when someone is returning fire.

      3. I don’t disagree, but this wasn’t rapid fire. It was 50 shots in 10 minutes. That’s once every 10 seconds. Plenty of time to re-aim.

    2. That’s what I was thinking. The only other people I know who take that many shots with such a low hit rate are our highly trained professionals behind the thin blue line. However, they generally pop off 50 shots in about 10 seconds, not 10 minutes.

    3. We can assume he knew what he wanted to do.

      But as far as 50 times over 10 minutes, without a good timeline, we don’t know how many of those shots were at targets standing in the open and how many were fired at the Capitol Police officers who were 1) shooting back, and 2) most of the time probably either behind cover, lying prone, or moving evasively.

      We also don’t know whether Flake’s shot count includes just shots fired by the bad guy, or all the shots fired (if I were to guess, I’d put my money on the number including those shots fired by the Capitol Police as well). If it does include all shots fired, we know that there were at least two Capitol Police officers on scene.

    4. Maybe it would be safest to assume he was targeting the pigeons.

  9. First, Republican officials shouldn’t be playing baseball with the enemy. This is collaboration no less than french women fucking the SS.

    Second, I hope the libertarian right takes this as the Sarajevo that is is, realizes the intentions of our stalinist enemy, comes out of the ivory tower, and starts acting like we’re in the midst of the Second Civil War – and here I refer to the Russian Civil War, Whites against Reds – that we are.

    1. It gets worse – they play soccer matches against each other too.

      1. They share whores and buy drinks for each other too.

        I think its because they are all the same.

        Although not worthy of being shot at random. Certainly the lion’s share of them should be tried, convicted, and sentenced

        1. Ever more reasons why these people do not need to go to DC to do their actual job.

  10. This happened less than a mile from my house an my kids play soccer at the same field. Surprised they have the congress team practice ther since its near several busy roads, bike trails, and rail lines, so not very secure. Heard a little while ago that the shooter is a middle-aged white guy.

    1. Surprised they have the congress team practice ther since its near several busy roads, bike trails, and rail lines, so not very secure.

      Outside of the Capitol building and the major congressional office buildings in DC, security for members of Congress is actually pretty thin.

      1. Outside of the Capitol building and the major congressional office buildings in DC, security for members of Congress is actually pretty thin.

        I’m not a security expert but you think that with having a bunch of congresspeople in one place, they might make it a bit tighter-like establish a perimeter? If they did that, they could not have used this field without closing off several busy streets. There is another public field close by that is at the end of a street in a more quiet neighborhood-you have to know its there to find it, so I’m surprised they didn’t use that one instead

        1. You can bet the police state is about to get a whole bunch bigger.

          I can’t believe a libertarian lives in DC. I can’t believe a libertarian would admit where he is.

          1. Agree on your first point, timbo-they are always looking for a reason to expand the security state.

            On your second point- Alexandria is a DC suburb-I don’t really live here by choice but for my job when I moved 15 years ago . Wasn’t planning to stay but ended up with a wife, house, and kids. Hope to get out of the DC area, and Northeast in general one day.

  11. 1. Wait, I thought guns were highly regulated in DC? How did this crazy guy get one in there?

    2. Props to the Capitol Police (or whichever agency) for taking the shooter alive

    Flake said the shooter “had a rifle of some kind. It was obviously a large gauge rifle”

    Yeah, I know you’re from AZ and all but forgive me if I wait for some confirmation on that. You politicians think 5.56 is a super-large super-powerful round.

    “Nobody would have survived without the Capitol Hill Police,” Paul said on CNN this morning. “It would have been a massacre without them.”

    OK, 50+ shots in 10 minutes, 5 hit, no dead? Sounds to me more like a mediocre shooter rather than the CP saved your arses.

    1. Was in Alexandria VA not DC

      Not that it actually would have made a difference in the situation

    2. To #1: this is America. The is very little “border checks” when you move between jurisdictions, be they state, City, county or so-on. That’s a major reason laws that ban or sharply restrict something in one state try to pressure their neighbors to do the same.

      Because unless you’re neighbors also prevent the sale of X (whether X is guns, pot, cigarettes, alcohol, porn, sex toys or abortion) your citizens can make a short trip, and visitors may already have it.

      That’s why so many of these things are federal issues, because solving them at the state level is insufficient.

      1. No, no, no, no – I am reliably informed that ‘gun-free zones’ work!

        1. As long as the encompass entire countries, they do.

          1. Like mexico? Seems to be working…

          2. Right. It’s not like the deadliest mass shooting in history happened in Scandinavia or anything.

            1. Who said anything about mass shootings? Why, it’s like you’re deliberately distracting from year-to-year statistics by invoking black swan events in the hopes that I won’t notice that you’re failing to defend your position.

              1. Would that be the year-to-year stats that shows that 2/3 of “gun deaths” are suicides you disingenuous douche?

              2. You haven’t answered my questuon about mexico, tony. Having trouble with that?

            2. Year to year statistics show no correlation between Brady index and homicide rate, whuch suggests people substitute other weapons for guns when guns are restricted.

          3. Yep. Just ask the folks at Charlie Hebdo. Or in Manchester.

          4. And the reason for failing economy and government chimes in.

      2. The is very little “border checks” when you move between jurisdictions, be they state, City, county or so-on.

        There are already quite a number of restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms from a federal level. Hell, roughly the same number of people are killed in car wrecks as they are with firearms, yet you can purchase cars across state lines without having to go through an FFL dealer, and driver’s licenses are “shall issue” with nothing more than an eye test required for renewal.

        I’d be more than willing to treat firearm ownership EXACTLY like we do car ownership, but for some reason when I point out these facts after liberals make the analogy, liberals move the goalposts and claim that the two are apples and oranges.

        1. Eh. There’s security theater, but no. No state in America has meaningful “gun control”. Well, maybe Hawaii. That and Alaska can actually meaningfully control what goes in/out. So maybe Hawaii could have meaningful gun control. But in the Continental US? No. It’s just security theater.

          1. No state in America has meaningful “gun control”.

            A question-begging statement if there ever was one.

    3. The shooter was taking return fire, so I’d assume that a lot of those shots weren’t carefully aimed.

      1. I sincerely doubt he was taking accurate return fire for the first couple of minutes – until the police located his position better and were able to move into position to threaten him.

        I wouldn’t, however, be surprised that the CP weren’t shooting at phantoms immediately after the first shot.

        But that’s mean-spirited, they did do a good job here, especially concerning taking a criminal alive instead of just shooting him to save themselves the paperwork. No bystanders shot by the cops and the perp taken alive – the CP guys deserve a pat on the back this time.

        1. The reports I saw said he was right up against the fence of the baseball field, not shooting from a distance.

        2. Credit where credit is due. The police reacted to save civilians. I’ll be glad to have the police, sometimes, where I live because my town is a scary place with many violent youths and teens.

          Whether our elected officials should have a taxpayer police force at all times is a matter of discussion in logical and logistical cost terms but no matter. The size of the government police force is about to explode.

    4. Lolita Lebrun was an even worse shot. But her efforts probably helped boost sales of Nabokov’s “Lolita” when it was published not long after the attempts.

    5. “OK, 50+ shots in 10 minutes, 5 hit, no dead? Sounds to me more like a mediocre shooter rather than the CP saved your arses.”

      Well, okay…but give him a few hundred rounds and about three hours, and “…it could have been a semi-massacre without them.”

  12. It’s time to tone down the hate rhetoric.

    1. That would require a media to report that maybe, just maybe, over-reacting to everything that happens in politics has something to do with the ire for the opposing teams from the Joe Schmoes out there. But I’m sure that has nothing to do with this…

      And yes, you heard it here first folks, Joe Schmoe is [potentially] confirmed to be the shooter.

      1. That or someone the helicopter picked at random, ? la Farenheit 451.

    2. I hate people who tell me to do that.

      Them, and Illinois Nazis.

    3. I should add… or that celebrities making light of killing the President or whomever they don’t agree with, might actually inspire these kinds of attacks.

      Not that I think either the media or anybody else should be required to change or tone down their rhetoric. My only point is that maybe they should decide to do so on their own.

      But in reality, this will turn into yet another call for stricter gun control, with a handful more Republicans joining in now that one of them has been a victim.

      1. Yeah, and in the South folks hung Obama in effigy.

        Look, you have freedom of speech, freedom to guns, and safety from violence. While it’s a bit simplistic to say “pick two”, there is a balance between them (though it’s more of a gradient then a bool).

        Restrict speech (via social pressure or laws) and you might tone down the violence. Restrict guns (by which I mean *actually* restrict guns, something America has never seriously tried) and you’ll probably reduce the lethality of the violence they does happen. Our you can accept the status quo and say “stuff happens”.

        It’s not pretty, but this sort of thing is the blood price we accept for our freedoms.

        1. It’s a general fact that once you restrict the guns people resort to melee weapons to kill each other. Somehow stabbings manage to make up the difference.

          1. To quote myself: “you’ll probably reduce the lethality of the violence they does happen.”

            No one is saying violent things won’t happen. But if you take away the guns, they become less lethal, and are less likely to have so many victims.

            1. No one is saying violent things won’t happen. But if you take away the guns, they become less lethal, and are less likely to have so many victims

              The biggest differences between today and two decades ago is 1) the relentless 24-hour media saturation, and 2) shooters are adopting terrorist tactics by targeting high-profile individuals and crowded venues where they can cause the maximum amount of damage in the shortest amount of time. The school shootings that have proliferated in recent years, for example, are almost always conducted by maladjusted nerds, not normies who fit into the social scene, and the shooters there are almost always suburban and white, so the media goes berserk every time it happens–which ends up encouraging copycats.

              Yet for all that, our society is far less violent than it was 20-25 years ago, despite it supposedly being the caricature of the wild west that shitlibs have in their heads. Hell, 45 years ago, bombings by left-wing radicals were almost a fact of life.

              1. 45 years ago heck the UnaBomber was only caught 20 years ago

                1. 45 years ago heck the UnaBomber was only caught 20 years ago

                  Yes, but to be fair, he wasn’t particularly active in the final years before he got caught. Check out “Days of Rage,” which goes into all the activities of violent left-wing movements in the late 60s through the 70s. People forget just how common, relatively speaking, that stuff was 40-45 years ago because media coverage wasn’t nearly as ubiquitous as it is today. But back then, the country was essentially in a low-grade form of civil war, which is why Nixon’s “tough on crime” message resonated so deeply with the people who voted for him, and has carried through to the present day, for the most part.

              2. The winner-takes-all stakes of our current nanny state don’t help either.

                Lecturing about the level of rhetoric will accomplish nothing so long as the value of the prize continues to escalate.

            2. not True in Japan where guns are highly regulated the people have resorted to making exploding rockets and poison gas and have used both. google it. the only reason there are fewer attacks there is the homoginy of the country

            3. You keep using that word ‘probably’ as thought there haven’t been studies carried out proving that you’re wrong, which I find ‘interesting’.

              1. RE: Great Britain and Australia gun bans, although also keep in mind the differences in how they actually report crime when doing your research.

            4. You don’t understand. Because many things can be used as weapons, there’s no point in banning guns.

              Also, we must permit guns because they are especially efficient weapons for self-defense purposes.

              1. Also, we must permit guns because they are especially efficient weapons for self-defense purposes

                Well, if one of the homeboys who populate Aurora had been in that theater, they probably would have dropped Holmes quickly enough that he’d be fertilizing the ground instead of being a taxpayer sponge.

              2. I take it you don’t see how those two premises complement rather than contradict each other, Tones.

                1. I am certain you are fully aware how the gun lobby and its sheep talk out of both sides of their mouths.

                  Why ban guns? Knives kill too!

                  So why keep guns? Because they’re the most efficient killing tools!

                  1. many things can be used as weapons


                    [guns] are especially efficient weapons for self-defense purposes



                    1. Words can cut like a knife.

                    2. oh, but it feels so right

            5. That must be why violence increases as gun ownership goes up.


              1. Gun violence certainly does.

                1. Just stop tony.
                  1. Everyone should be able to defend themselves however they chose
                  2. the real value of the 2nd amendment is last line defense against tyranny. You don’t understand that socialism/fascism is the natural progression towards tyranny.

                  You unwaveringly support leftists policies which follow the long and proven line of descent into socialism and fascism. Fascism comes first with government business collusion like under bush, Obama, and trump and basically all before them in this century. Socialism comes next with basically the same stuff.

                  You’re too stupid to understand that all of Washington is in the massive government camp which also means they have no issue with guns going away. Republicans too. I feel sorry for people like you but then again your stupidity is why this country is in its death throes.

                  1. Tony is pro-tyranny, and imagines himself as one of the boots on our necks and his socialist utopia.

                2. “Gun violence certainly does”
                  Even assuming that’s true, who cares? If fewer people had guns and simply resorted to violence via other means, is that better? Why?

                  I posted above that this is precisely what is observed. The main effect of gun restriction on ‘violence’ is that more people hang themselves or jump off bridges instead of shooting themselves.

                  1. I posted above that this is precisely what is observed. The main effect of gun restriction on ‘violence’ is that more people hang themselves or jump off bridges instead of shooting themselves

                    It also misses the entire point of the right to bear arms. I’d rather risk the small possibility that I’ll be shot (and, statistically speaking, it is a small possibility) and have the right to defend myself and my family secured, than live in a society of progressive feudalism where only agents of the state are allowed that means.

        2. “in the South folks hung Obama in effigy.”

          Well, what would you expect? They are all a bunch of backwards, uneducated, inbred, cousin humping yokels.

          Unlike the toney, educated, and urbane denizens of West Hollywood.

          Who hung Sarah Palin in effigy.

          But, do tell me about how the tut-tutting over both was anywhere near the same.

          1. Hanging politicians in effigy is a long-standing practice all over the world. Due to the historic connotations of hanging black men in America, people were actually pretty restrained with the practice during the Obama years. Trump has probably already been hung in effigy more times in 5 months than Obama was during his entire two terms.

          2. … you entirely missed my point.

            Despite the pissing and moaning of libertarians, America remains one of the midst free countries on Earth, and is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

            A consequence of that is yes, murdering our politicians in effigy. And occasionally attempting to do it in real life. That’s the bloody price we pay for our freedom.

            So freak out about this if you want, but the only response that will actually reduce the rhetorical or physical violence is to reduce our freedom in one form or another.

        3. ” Our you can accept the status quo and say “stuff happens”. ”

          This is basically the approach that we need to take with all forms of terrorism. Much like anything that is undesirable in a society, you’ll never eliminate everything, even if you do give up your freedoms. At the end of the day all you’ll have is similar levels of terrorism and less freedom as a society.

          That being said, I think that people with high levels of access to the masses, ie the media and celebrities, should hold themselves to a higher standard and not incite violence against those that they don’t agree with. Again, I fully respect their rights as individuals to express themselves through speech or print however they feel obligated to. But… we as consumers of their media should hold them to a higher standard with our dollars, because after all, that’s a language we can all speak.

          If Kathy Griffin wants to pose with severed heads of her political “enemies” then maybe we as a society should say, “enough,” and choose not to buy whatever it is that she’s selling. Maybe that’s a bad example, because I don’t think she’s been relevant since she had a minor role on Seinfeld.

          1. I don’t see what Griffin did as any sort of direct cause for this or anything like it.

            But I do see what she did – that she ever thought it appropriate – as a harbinger of things to come.

            1. I see this as a culmination of increasingly hostile political rhetoric. Would this have happened without Griffin’s stunt, or the media’s obsession with how evil Trump is? Maybe…

              To say that there’s no potential causality is naive, I think.

              1. And if Sarah Palin hadn’t drawn those gun sights on the Democrats (Gabby Giffords) she targeted in 2010… Do you see how stupid you are now?

                1. Remind me of the political addilitation of the giffords shooter…

              2. Hardly na?ve. Where you see causation, I see correlation. Or, put another way, thunder does not cause lightning, even though you often hear rumbles long before you see a bolt.

          2. It looks like Trump and Republican politics incited this guy to violence but that doesn’t justify the violence.

            1. Really? So anything I don’t like is incitement? I bet you’re part of the “words are violence” crowd.

            2. “It looks like Trump and Republican politics incited this guy to violence but that doesn’t justify the violence.”

              We should probably ban competing political ideology, so that nobody else gets hurt.

          3. If Kathy Griffin wants to pose with severed heads of her political “enemies” then maybe we as a society should say, “enough,” and choose not to buy whatever it is that she’s selling.

            I have never bought anything Kathy Griffin related, but she won’t go away!

        4. Every president has been hung and burned in effigy. It is a rite of passage, like being portrayed as Hitler.

      2. There is a picture online of the Bernie-fan-cum-shooter calling for stricter tax collections. Maybe now they’ll take his message seriously and send out even more tax collectors with guns?

  13. To quote Jeb Bush, “look, stuff happens”.

    1. You realize you’re just setting yourself up so next time a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, the Trump admin can say the same think re travel ban, right?

      1. … how? Jeb Bush’s poorly delivered point was that while bad things happened, we shouldn’t overreact and pretend it justified new action.

        So yeah, shit happens. And this shooting doesn’t justify me gun control laws, just like Orlando didn’t justify me immigration laws.

        It’s not pretty, but until we get a social will to actually change things, that’s America.

  14. how many of the 50 shots were by the police

    1. There you go, thinking again.

  15. My favorite premature conclusion/overreaction so far is that the GOP may have planned this themselves. Toward what end, I’m not sure, but maybe the team needed more practice time.

    But there are so many to choose from because people can’t help themselves.

  16. To quote Ebeneezer the town drunk in Gilbert Shelton’s comic “Give Me Liberty”: That’s a shame…
    (Hessian troops had set fire to the parish church in 1776)

  17. Prepare for the new travel ban that says people who don’t like Republicans can’t go outside anymore. It’s for our own good!

  18. Bats at a gunfight?

    1. That’s why I prefer aluminum.

      1. +1 Easton (although I prefer maple anymore)

    2. Why not a rifle shaped like a bat? Duel purpose!

      1. nice homophone…bloodshed aside, the image of them running around ala cowboys with their rifle-bats is humorous…

        1. I thought is was clever!

  19. Hodgkinson is “an avid letter writer to the local paper in Belleville…

    Artist’s rendition.

  20. Sweet Jesus, is this really the lead sentence in the WaPo report identifying the shooter????

    The man suspected of firing dozens of rounds into an Alexandria baseball field Wednesday morning has been identified by federal law enforcement officials as James T. Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Ill.

    The horror! He assaulted a baseball diamond!!!!

    1. I suspect if Democrats had been on the field WaPo might have gone with a more strident tone, but frankly I can’t bring myself to care much about their rag these days.

      1. After all, they do so many obnoxious things in your imagination.

        1. Tony hates baseball fields because one raped his mother, hence his callous indifference to its shooting.

          1. He hates baseball fields because he is a loser and can’t find happiness or success. That’s why he wants the government to take all of the baseball fields’ money from them and force the baseball fields to pay for everyone’s healthcare.

            1. “That’s why he wants the government to take all of the baseball fields’ money”

              Just the rich baseball fields’ money. 99% of them are just fine.

      2. I suspect if Democrats had been on the field WaPo might have gone with a more strident tone, but frankly I can’t bring myself to care much about their rag these days.

        Well that would be the greatest atrocity in human history and we’d need another 11 month investigation into Trump and Russia’s involvement in such.

        Fuck WaPo. I haven’t touched that shit in months.

  21. “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us” Paul Ryan. Stoke the tribal fire, stoke it.

    1. >>>all of us


    2. Well, I’m sure all the sympathy from their Democrat colleagues will soon be forthcoming–along with statements to their progressive followers that violence isn’t the answer.

      And they need to be told that violence isn’t the answer. Why are progressives so violent?

      1. Gun control nuts are already squirming out of the cracks and crevices.

      2. -along with statements to their progressive followers that violence isn’t the answer.

        Accompanied by covert winking.

      3. Why do ALL their policies require absolutely the initiation of force? This is as close as I’ve seen to the scene in All Quiet on the Western Front–where the soldiers in the bleachers watch politicians and their fanatical dupes killing each other in the arena.

  22. the alleged shooter’s social media “amounts to extended screed against Trump.”

    You could have just said “he was active on social media.”

    1. I LOLed.

      1. *wipes away tear*

        Thank you.

  23. What is it about progressives that makes them so violent?

    1. The the ends justify the means, comrade.

    2. A belief that (1) dissent is unacceptable and (2) the masses (i.e., everyone except me) needs to be controlled (by me).

    3. Their love of Che?

      Although in fairness, half of progs have no idea what he did. Sadly, the other half know exactly what he did.

      1. Most progs, fortunately, are too damn stupid and pussylike to ever act on their hatred however.

        That is the only value in an American public school education; almost total compliance and reverence to authority. As long as that authority is gubment. They could give a fuck about being gainfully employed and working for the company bottom line/profit

        1. That’s what plenty of Germans thought of the socialists in their midst in 1935. It doesn’t much matter if they personally won’t be violent if they whole-heartedly support the sociopaths who will gladly do violence any chance they get and dream up more reasons for them to do so.

          It’s what scares me about the current hero-worship of public servants from all but the libertarian sector of our populace.

    4. Progressives have no souls.

  24. All the baseball players were wearing red and the idiot actually had to ask if they were Republicans or Democrats.

    Another stupid Illinois Democrat. At least he can’t vote anymore.

    1. He’s dead, and it’s Illinois: he’ll still be voting.

      1. Especially since he’s a Democrat.

  25. So, a Berniebot with a severe case of TDS. Color me shocked.

  26. The accused shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, 66, posted a link to a petition in late March that included the notation that, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.

    Interesting feat considering that there is no “democracy” to destroy.

    1. Okay, one line of MSM and progressive talk I have not been able to wrap my head around is the “Trump is a traitor” bit. Even if all their wildest fantasies are true, and Trump did somehow or another work with the Russian government to win the election and do various yet-to-be-identified bad things to Hillary and the DNC….how is that treason? Last I checked, the DNC and the United States government are two separate and distinct entities.

      1. They’re trying to figure out if anyone in the Trump circle was in on the Russian operation to disrupt the election.

        Why do you fuckfaces continue to defend Trump? Can someone answer me please?

        1. he gets a pass on his birthday?

        2. I’m criticizing the idiotic conspiracy-mongering and attempts to lead us into a war with Russian in response to Hillary’s embarrassing loss. I’m not defending Trump. Fuck Trump. He’s a thin-skinned buffoon with authoritarian instincts.

          Are you really so stupid that you don’t see the difference?

          1. I don’t see anything at all. Just partisan Trump defense then a word salad when you’re called on it.

            1. No, I’m confused on the misuse of the word “treason.” Words have meaning, you dumb piece of shit. I’m asking how, even under the most generous interpretation of events, that amounts to “treason.” I’m not saying that such actions wouldn’t be illegal, just that they wouldn’t be that specific crime.

            2. The “word salad” is just a reaction to the fact that you’re the King of Conflation. If Trump says “the sky is blue” and somebody agrees with him, you squeal “why are you defending Trump?”

          2. Derp,

            He’s fucking stupid. And palin and hihn and who am I missing?

            Having discussion with brainwashed leftists is always a waste of time. Although infuriating this dipshit is a nice release sometimes.

            1. I don’t think Hihn is stupid. I’m pretty sure he’s bipolar, or something similar.

        3. Tony:
          “Why do you fuckfaces continue to defend Trump? Can someone answer me please?”

          Well, besides the fact that he serves his purpose as an elected giant orange middle finger to you and your ilk?

          How ’bout…He’s not Hillary Clinton.

          (if reply seems jokey, it may be because I don’t think much of him, as a person or as a president. That said, his lack of intellectual and political bona fides may result in him doing less damage to the country than any president since Ford. Commence hysteria in five…four…three…)

        4. “They’re trying to find out…” if if gay frogs are molesting children at a pizza parlor?

  27. I’m thinking it stems from their central philosophy.

    Being a progressive is about using the coercive power of government to force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good.

    Those sacrifices they want to force people to make are often about people’s individual rights. And individual right is the right to make choices for yourself–and how can you be allowed to make choices for yourself when the consequences of your choices may harm the common good?

    Once the progressive mind gets past any ethical consideration for people’s individual rights, violence is probably just the next logical step. I mean, what’s the difference between the government using force to make you do what they think is right and average people using force to impose themselves on you?

    Not much, really. I think that’s why progressives are so violent. They’ve stopped caring about violating other people’s individual rights from a moral perspective, and violence is just a graduation of that.

    1. >>>violence is just a graduation of that

      four-year-olds get noisier and bangier when nobody pays attention to them

      1. Maybe we should devote some real attention to them. Maybe thin the herd a bit. That might straighten things out.

    2. There does seem to be a pattern to their morality and lack of impulse control. They claim to want to pay higher taxes but they need to be compelled to do it by law and won’t do it voluntarily. They also apparently know themselves well enough that they shouldn’t be trusted with guns and so they need a ban to protect themselves from themselves.

      1. There’s a certain amount of dehumanization that goes on, too.

        Talk to a progressives about why white, blue collar, middle class voters feel like progressives hate them so much, and the discussion will quickly turn into them talking about why the white, blue collar, middle class should be hated.

        I think the average progressive has a picture in their heads of what a midwestern Trump supporter looks like, but that picture doesn’t really look like any human on earth.

        I guess that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt. The alternative explanation is that they really do genuinely hate average Americans for being average Americans. It’s like in Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, when he goes to the land of the Houyhnhnms.

        In the end, Gulliver is so disgusted by average people, he can’t even stand to be around his own family anymore. Gulliver comes to think so little of average people, he sails home with a sail made of human skin–without giving it a second thought.

        Same as it ever was. Elitism comes from contempt for people. Let them eat cake.

        1. I thought this was a bit. Apparently not.

          1. I think in general everyone is giving the average American leftist too much credit.

            The government has succeed in brainwashing more leftist idiots and it cannot be reversed.

            We are constantly discussing what could be done to slow the train. Great Britain is a fine example of how far gone it is.

            This is a slow bleed to total enforced corrupt socialism and the populous is on board until the end.
            Your comments above are spot on about the compulsion to violence. Tony is a prime example of how they use the sheep to foment anger. This idiot will argue with people for hours, never listen, read, or attempt to understand other opinions and history, then regurgitate the talking points his masters on Rachel maddow tell him to. They are robots that have been trained to eliminate.

    3. You need to see a therapist.


      2. While we’re at it, maybe the guy who patrols the comments section of an ideology he disagrees with, looking for the weakest comment he can find to ridicule as a cousin fucker, should take a look at what his health plan offers

        1. looking for the weakest comment he can find


          1. To be fair I had yet to read Ken’s comment. Not the weakest comment here (I think Tony pounced on those above, as usual, to reaffirm his belief that he has the moral and intellectual high ground with us) but poorly timed given that we’ve known the guy’s ideology for all of a few hours

            But I will somewhat disagree with Ken’s comment. Yes, progressivism is violent because it uses the body that has a monopoly on violence, the federal government, to force you to bow to their ideology and give for their definition of the greater good. But progressives are not all inherently violent. I left when I realized I wasn’t actually in the anti-violence party (thanks Obama!), and I think there are plenty of people still there who could also be persuaded at least partially. And it’s a small (albeit growing) handful who no longer wish to engage intellectually with the opposition, which could definitely escalate, but until we know otherwise this is still an individual who is responsible for his own actions

            1. You can disagree more than “somewhat.” He’s gone off the deep end.

              1. They’re good, rational people who just think that the government owns everything and occasionaly set fire to buildings and throw bricks.

              2. The violent ideology thing is correct in my view (although pretty obvious to any libertarian, isn’t the violence inherent to both parties why we’re here?), but saying they’re all violent as individuals or complicit in this shooting is pretty out there

                The Muslim comment below is the real crazy one

            2. The problem is, those people you refer to ChipToBeSquare are not Progressives they are probably left-over’s from Classical Liberalism. It’s import to draw distinctions since Progressivism itself is a cancer on Liberalism, and it’s pretty much killed off the host at this point politically. Sure, there are plenty of CL’s left in the ranks but they keep their heads down because their allies are crazy people, and dangerous to boot. The irony is that Progressives are deeply anti-liberal, so I’m not really sure why they put up with each other.

              1. To the last point: convenience. On their own neither could seize power

                You might be somewhat right, except perhaps for the use of the term “classical liberal”. I might call it something else. I would like to see a breakdown of how many progs there are now versus the traditional constituents of the Democrats. But either way this particular brand of progressivism is new, and I don’t want to write them all off as hopeless just yet

            3. Bernie will agree with that statement, I’ll wager at hefty odds. He sure as hell isn’t going to call attention to his own programming millions of cretins to send looting tax agents out with guns and orders to shoot all who resist. This is another force-initiating chicken coming home to roost. The irony will of course be wasted on Bernie, Scalise and their worshipful congregants. My schadenfreude goes out to all of them with complete impartiality.

            4. But progressives are not all inherently violent.

              All creatures are inherently violent. It’s how they survived and evolved.

              Government’s chief purpose is to perform violence upon undesirables. Those who want more government desire more violence. I won’t single out progressives as the only ones who want more government, but I will single them out as the ones in current U.S. society who actually want total government.

        2. looking for the weakest comment he can find to ridicule as a cousin fucker

          I’ve never seen Tony respond to his own comments.


      3. Tony has four he can highly recommend. Two unfortunately are actually just phone poles he talks to.

    4. Ken hits the nail on the head, once again.

      Once you put the collective above the individual, violence becomes inherent to your ethos.

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      -C.S. Lewis

    5. It’s why most big-city police vote Democrat. They voted Democrat before they became police.

  28. It’s interesting, too, when progressives talk about Muslim terrorists, they’ll often dismiss his actions as pathological–he had a mental illness, doncha know.

    This progressive going on a shooting spree won’t have anything to do with that–because the progressives all agree with the shooter. They may not agree with his actions, but they agree with his motives.

    Maybe we should have some kind of hotline for when progressives feel like some of their own are becoming radicalized online. We do this with Muslims. We tell them that if they know one of their own is being radicalized to phone it in anonymously.

    We should do the same with progressives.

    Is there a survey out there of what percentage of progressives support using violence against Republicans?

    1. If the treatment of prominent conservatives by progressives on college campuses is any indication, I’d wager that percentage is troublingly high.

      1. I bet it is, too!

        People quote surveys around here of Muslims around the world and whether they condone violence. I’d love to see the same surveys directed at progressives.

        I’m sure a nice chunk of them see violence as a legitimate response to Republicans.

        1. Sorry, but I saw that “tree of liberty” quote far too many times over the last eight years to give that thought a pass.

          *Americans* see political violence, in some situations at least, as legitimate. Where we disagree is on who the tyrants are.

          1. Violence to overthrow a vicious dictatorship, I’m sure.

            Violence against Republicans because they support Trump and his policies?

            That kind of thinking is common among progressives. Violating an individual’s rights for being racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc is fully justified in the progressive mind–they don’t even think those people should be allowed to speak in public.

            Meanwhile, we’re watching progressives act out violently all over the place.

    2. I missed something. I there someone against whom Republicans (or Democrats, Progressives, Econazis or Socialists) do NOT wish to initiate the use of coercive force?

      1. Generally speaking, conservatives oppose using the coercive power of government to force people to buy health insurance, bake wedding cakes to gay weddings, or have the government prevent individuals from releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere.

        Generally speaking, progressives want to use the coercive power of government to do all those things and more.

  29. I think that’s why progressives are so violent. They’ve stopped caring about violating other people’s individual rights from a moral perspective, and violence is just a graduation of that.

    ^This^ x1000. Proggies see people as groups in need of control. This includes controlling the voting preferences of their favored groups.

    1. Aren’t you morons the ones who always cry that we shouldn’t politicize shootings?

      Seek help. All of you. Or at least turn off fat-man radio.

      1. Isn’t it inherently political to attempt assassinating a group of politicians?

        1. Which obviously necessitates you coming here to implicate all progressives in the country. I bet you never get upset when people do that about gun owners.

          1. I didn’t say all progressives are violent.

            Only that forcing individuals to sacrifice their rights in the name of the common good leads to violence as a logical conclusion.

            It’s a violent ideology, so it shouldn’t surprise us that progressives are so violent.

          2. Say there Tony, did you ever consider, even for a second, that this might not be the time to be snotty and condescending?


            1. Ken is making valid points toney. Did you read them?

          3. No one has said all progressives are responsible for this. The only person responsible for the shooting is the asshole who fire the weapon. I am, however, making an observation about the well-documented violent rhetoric and actions of emboldened progressives, especially those on college campuses.

      2. “Aren’t you morons the ones who always cry that we shouldn’t politicize shootings?”

        Really? I know you’re a moron, but are you this fucking brain dead you vile cunt? He shot them specifically because they’re republicans. So the shooting is EXCLUSIVELY POLITICAL. Can your little skull nugget process that as a thought? Or is it all pops and buzzes for you?

  30. After the obvious gun control debate, how quick do we see Palin’s crosshair picture and “2nd amendment remedies” brought up? And the GOP railing about violent images while the left discovers individual responsibility?

    Ahh, blind partisan hackery

    1. Let’s be fair. Non-moles here are part of the 3.28% that reject initiation of force policies. Alluva sudden the other 96.7% are at each other’s throats with live ammo, trucks on pedestrians, brickbats at campus events, footraces and ball games–stuff their major and minor premises absolutely require. The moles present quite naturally hope to garner sympathy for their violent causes, or they wouldn’t be here. So, horselaughs, schandenfreude or pity? Name your poison.

      1. I’m guessing by “moles” you mean non-libertarians?

        I’m that case, I can tell you why I’m here, you don’t have to guess. I’m here because while I think libertarians are wrong on many things, it’s an interesting (if Utopian) philosophy, and I’m curious how self-identified libertarians react to things. I invariably end up disagreeing with you lot, but while I’m generally happy to discuss, it’s for my own benefit, not yours.

        Any “sympathy” garnered is incidental.

  31. It took a tragedy like this to get Bernie Sanders to renounce his socialist ideology in this full-throated endorsement of a voluntary society:

    Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.

    1. Progressives need to have that explained to them.

      Not everyone does, but progressives do.

      I once saw a study in an anthropology class that showed the murder rate (cross culturally and throughout history) tends to go up during war time. There’s just a certain amount of people out there who have a hard time differentiating between the enemy and their own enemies. Once you tell those people that it’s alright to kill the enemy, they just can’t keep that compartmentalized–and the murder rate goes up.

      We have a word for those people in our society. They’re called “progressives”.

      I’m not saying they’re all that way, but once you’ve convinced people that individual rights don’t matter if they get in the way of the common good, some of them just have a hard time keeping that idea compartmentalized. If violating people’s individual rights for the common good is okay for people to do when they’re working for the government, then why isn’t it okay for me to violate some individual’s rights for the sake of the common good, too?

      That’s the problem with what Bernie said. It’s actually a contradiction against everything he stands for. It’s a good thing he said it. Progressives need to hear that violence is unacceptable–because they’d never come to that conclusion using their own ideology. It’s an ideology that reverences government initiated violence against individuals.

      1. “We have a word for those people in our society. They’re called “progressives”.

        I’m not saying they’re all that way, but once you’ve convinced people that individual rights don’t matter if they get in the way of the common good, some of them just have a hard time keeping that idea compartmentalized.”

        Progressives hardly have a strangle-hold on the whole “individual rights don’t matter” mantra. Conservatives place a potentially mythical Man-God-Spirit ahead of most of my individual rights on a daily basis.

        By the way, Man-God-Spirit is literally half man, half god, half spirit.

        1. The discussion should not be about progs vs conservatives. it should be about intelligent capitalists against government of any strip. They are naturally anathema to one another.

          If government existed to enforce private property rights and contract law and their only annual function was to get together once to make sure no government was growing, then there might be room for capitalism and government for a while.

        2. Wrong. Only progressives appeal to the “common good.” Only them. By definition. Always and forever.

          1. Being critical of collectivism is probably a hate crime.

        3. “Progressives hardly have a strangle-hold on the whole “individual rights don’t matter” mantra. Conservatives place a potentially mythical Man-God-Spirit ahead of most of my individual rights on a daily basis.”

          Using the coercive power of government to force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good is what being a progressive is all about.

          Surely, there are other groups who would violate individual rights. Few of them make violating individual rights the whole center of the purpose.

    2. Bernie Sanders runs against our most deeply held American values.

      1. Marxism runs against our most deeply held values.
        Marxism is a call for fascism, then socialism, then communism.

        All are the complete suppression of freedom and individual rights.

        Bernie sanders is an avowed socialist

        Americans are in such deep trouble considering that this guy would have been a close second if not actually elected president were it not for the other corrupt Marxist cunt.

        1. My favorite response to the “Bernie would have won” mantra they keep spewing is “I know. I’m so happy he didn’t”

          1. That may be the only greater positive contribution Trump has made, than preventing another Clinton presidency: preventing a Bernie one.

    3. Violence is resisting State coercion. Ask any looter. The coercion itself, by men with guns? That’s voluntary freedom! I’ve heard this uttered hundreds of times, with the most pitiful sincerity you can imagine this side of an insane asylum.

    4. I do not take Bernie at his word. He is a communist. therefore his word is meaningless.

  32. In other news-there was a primary for the VA governors’ race here yesterday. The dem candidate, who voted for GW Bush twice, handily defeated a Bernie-bro and the GOP candidate, who is a former GW Bush adviser, very narrowly defeated a Trump mini-me who is on a crusade to save Confederate monuments.

    1. But didn’t Ed Gillespie lose out on the gov nomination or the Senate or something a few years back? He’s very much a NoVA-type Republican, and most of the rest of the Commonwealth really isn’t feeling that these days.

      1. He came within a few thousand votes of defeating Mark Warner in 2014, which would have been a huge upset for the dems. Gillespie was also chair of the RNC, so yes, a total insider with the charisma of wallpaper paste. I can’t see how he can win unless there is some major scandal with Ralph Northam (the dem candidate). I worry more about what will happen if the dems also win a majority in the house of delegates, and proceed to turn Virginia into another Maryland, or Massachusetts…

  33. More evidence that the Block Yomomma leftards have lost their minds.

    1. God how I hate partisan stupidity like this. You really have no idea that you are exactly the same as the “leftards” that you so despise. The only difference is that your knee jerks at different triggers.

      1. Do you read the news? How is he wrong? Most things don’t actually have any real equivalency, and this is one of them. The progressives are evil, period.

  34. With all the trying to pit one group against the other in was bound to happen sooner or later

  35. So, the Republicans were responsible for a deranged Leftist shooting Giffords.

    I’m betting, somehow, this is ALSO their fault.

    1. Yeah, the shooter probably felt triggered.

      1. I see what you did there.

  36. I think he misunderstood what Hillary meant by ‘when they go low, we go high!’

    Other than that, remember when civil discourse mattered under Bush? If we’re to hold the left to their own rhetoric, I don’t see how the Democrats and their supporters can be absolved of criticism given how they have behaved since the election. They played their respective parts in riling up the base and the list absolutely includes Hillary and Obama.

    You don’t keep telling people how you lost because of Russians so as to delegitimize a democratically elected officials while giving the impression if you whine and lie enough you could somehow over turn the result. Obama for his part did little to assuage any thing (thus furthering the notion he was more of an activist than a leader) during the transition period. Since then, he has used his speech tour to take coy and under handed shots undermining a sitting President.

    Such decorum and leadership!


    1. Obama for his part did little to assuage any thing (thus furthering the notion he was more of an activist than a leader) during the transition period. Since then, he has used his speech tour to take coy and under handed shots undermining a sitting President.

      If anything, O helped stir the pot by mocking those who opposed him. Trump has mostly focused on mocking the media, not the resistards.

    2. That’s different because bush sucked. Equivocation is clearly the proper response here.

  37. Can someone verify the full Paul quote? Found this on businessinsider and twitter.

    “Everybody would’ve died except for the fact that Capitol Hill police were there,” Paul said. “Had they not been there, it would have been a massacre.”

    “When you have no way to defend yourself … the field was essentially a killing field,” Paul later told CNN.

  38. Another Bernie supporter goes nuts and tries to kill someone, somehow this will be the fault of those violent right wing nut bags who voted for President Trump who hates everyone who isn’t white and wants to build a wall.

    Yes sir, the violent right wing nutbags upset the leftists so badly, they torched their own beloved StarBucks! Why won’t the right take responsibility for the leftist actions.

    By the way did you know according to ANTIFA it is okay to punch white libertarian males in the face??? That is because you libertarians upset liberals with arguments about limited government. It’s your own fault if it happens.

  39. Standing by for announcement of the navy’s newest ship, the USS Steve Scalise. Or do you have to take one in the head to get that honor?

    My recent post: Canine Commissions Review
    Sent from Best Jvzoo Reviews

  40. Something that nobody is talking about is that this loser was walking around with his rifle, and nobody thought that was out of line. Why? Because the gun nuts have normalized the idea that folks can just go walking around with a freaking assault rifle with no problem. And of course since the gun nuts have a home with the Republicans, they especially didn’t seem to mind. It almost makes one think that this is karmaic.

  41. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    follow this link?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.