December 19, 2012

Republicans used to stress "law and order," and Democrats — sounding more educated and compassionate — said we needed to look at the "root causes" of crime.

Back in, say, the Nixon era, we Nixon-hating types used "law-and-order" as an adjective expressing contempt. We might say, for example, "Governor Reagan is a law-and-order idiot."

Remember when Nixon caught flak for saying — about Charles Manson — "Here is a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.... Here is a man, yet, who, as far as the news media coverage was concerned, appeared to be rather a glamorous figure..."?

Nowadays, everyone's for law and order. The disagreement is only over the nature of the order. The Democrats don't react to mass murder with pleas to understand mental illness, economic strains, and cultural malaise anymore. They offer tougher laws (in the form of gun control).

Meanwhile, the mentally ill live on the streets or — once they've acted out — are incapacitated in prisons, and one hears very little concern about it from Democrats.

81 comments:

SteveR said...

shhh!

Michael K said...

The Democrats know very well that no significant gun laws will be passed but the uproar serves their purpose better than new laws that would fail. Political theater is what the Democrats are about. Considering the last election, it works pretty well.

Marshal said...

They offer tougher laws (in the form of gun control).

Note the key difference: Republicans want stronger laws and better enforcement of behavior everyone agrees should be criminal. Democrats want to criminalize behavior only tangentially related to criminal events. In other words the Democratic response is to crack down on non-criminals.

Sam L. said...

Tougher laws, affecting the non-criminals amongst us.

Larry J said...

The guy didn’t kill his mother and 26 innocent people at the school because of the guns. He killed those innocent people because he was mentally ill, just like the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords and the guy who killed all those students at Virgina Tech and most, if not all, other mass shootings.

Addressing the issue of people who’re mentally ill and pose a danger to others while preventing the abuses of the past is a serious and difficult issue. But hey, let’s write yet another law controlling inanimate objects instead to say we’re doing something. That approach has worked so well in the past, hasn’t it?

Einstein said that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. By that definition, I suppose those advocating yet more gun control are insane which might explain why they don’t want to address the issue of mental illness.

holdfast said...

Conservatives favor strong (or maybe even harsh) application of the law against criminals.

In this case the Democrats favor laws that will hurt the law-abiding, potentially create new "criminals" who were previously law abiding citizens, and have no effect on the actual violent criminals who are the problem.

And yet prosecutions for actual gun crimes - beaking the existing laws - are down under Obama from the Bush years. The Democrats like to have lots of onerous and complex laws on the books, and then they can decide who gets prosecuted (guitar maker Gibson) and who gets to skate (i.e. the New Black Panthers, and Obama's illegal immigrant aunt and uncle). It's not all that different from the multitute of Obamacare waivers that Katherine Sebellius dispenses to friends and supporters of the adminstration.

Paul Zrimsek said...

The trouble with the conservative version of law and order is that it's directed against the people who actually commit the crimes. Hard to congratulate yourself on your superior discernment and sympathy when you go around doing obvious shit like that.

traditionalguy said...

Yes. The Dems of 1960 through 1998 were god men and women with a point of view that favored the oppressed/poor. JFK was a good man and I believe he would have done well as he learned the job Joe bought for the Kennedy family.

It was an American story.

But the Dems of 2000 and after are The Oppressors seeking to succeed at creating an Orwellian world using world computers and trade with China while they create a belief in delusional Alternate Reality. That means using a digitally controlled top down fascism.

Why would they do that? They are the latest practitioners of will to power Nietzche and quite insane themselves. The Dems have become a Mafia made of Narcissistic Personality Disorder creeps having a huge party at the expense of the oppressed/poor.

How about the Dems tripling energy costs for the fun of doing it to us under a hoax about CO2.

david7134 said...

People need to remember that it was Geraldo Rivera that changed our approach to mental health. He made his name in the 70's by closing mental health institutions and we have been fearful ever since of housing these people. Plus, he assured an increase in the cost of housing them. So when you look at the death of innocents, remember this clown is the reason.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Being only a little kid at the time, I understood "law and order" to mean cracking down on the Blacks.

cubanbob said...

With leftist its always a pious lie in the service of the revolution. It's always about power and nothing more.

virgil xenophon said...

Hopelessly derivative here, I know, but man, everyone thru C4 as I type here this am is on fire and each right on tgt!

virgil xenophon said...

Sorry, meant trad guy, not C4, but cubanbob also. EVERYONE so far has the lefts number. But I really don't know how much intellectual credit I should give to you guys (lol) as the left's objectives are so transparent as to make not just the clearest of glass windows seem opaque by comparison but day itself seem akin to pitch black total darkness...these guys aren't subtle about telegraphing their punches..

bagoh20 said...

"and one hears very little concern about it from Democrats."

All you have to do is elect a Republican President, and the chorus will begin.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Being only a little kid at the time, I understood "law and order" to mean cracking down on the Blacks.

And now? Have you put aside childish things?

AF said...

Meanwhile, the mentally ill live on the streets or — once they've acted out — are incapacitated in prisons, and one hears very little concern about it from Democrats.

Democrats actively pursue policies to treat the mentally ill and keep them off the streets, through such policies as SSI, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. The latter was bipartisan, the others the Dems are defending against Republican-proposed cuts or repeal.

It's true that Democrats tend not to link mental health with crime any more, with the exception of the movement to involuntarily commit sex offenders to mental institutions, which has largely been bipartisan, with opposition from libertarians and some liberals Democrats. My sense is this is because the law-and-order folks were basically right and won the debate.


Bob Boyd said...

You have to remember, the Democratic party is not controlled by liberals anymore. It has been taken over by the progressives.
To a progressive the only true crime is to thwart their ambition which equals standing in the road of progress.
This issue, like all issues, will be used to attack and diminish their opposition, just like the "fiscal cliff", immigration, health care costs and on and on.

Won't it be swell when we have permanent one party majority? Then we'll all be happy, happy, happy!
Well...not all. But if history teaches us anything it is that those in power are happiest when they are unopposed. I can't wait.

shiloh said...

Re: gun violence:

But the idea that there is a "solution" seems naive to me. ~ Althouse

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

If Althouse gets killed by a deranged student, c'est la vie ...

Indeed, as it's an imperfect world and striving for a more perfect union is useless!

barribarri said...

How will it look when you get your wish to have the government lock up 16 MILLION people guilty of nothing?


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/

React to this.

X said...

OT good news: Big Tex is back just in time for Christmas

roesch/voltaire said...

Just to give the Althouse band a bit of historical context, I suggest you read Alexandar Thomas's report on the issue, and I quote from his abstract:
Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives, law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the practitioners working with those patients. Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness

barribarri said...

Marshal,
So, mental illness is now a crime?

And "everyone agrees"?

Well, you, Ann, and Hitler, anyway.

SteveR said...

React to this

So its not the NRA's fault?

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Zrimsek said...

It's true that Democrats tend not to link mental health with crime any more.... My sense is this is because the law-and-order folks were basically right and won the debate.

I think it likelier that it's because the deinstitutionalization movement was forced, like so many other things, into the Procrustean bed of the civil-rights template-- and that one of the consequences of this is that any notion of an inherent link between madness and violence is as morally unthinkable as an inherent link between blackness and violence would be.

barribarri said...

Schizophrenia is the mental illness most commonly associated with violence.

Out of 100 schizophrenics. 8 of them will commit a violent crime.
Out of 100 perfectly “normal” people. 5 of them will commit a violent crime.

Thus, the association of schizophrenia or other mental illness, with violent crime is FALSE. It is believed by many, based on the SPOTLIGHT fallacy.

Hypothetically (assuming 100 to be the total number), if you permanently confined all schizophrenics, you would sentence 92 innocent people to LIFE IMPRISONMENT to prevent 8 violent crimes.

You should be disbarred.

leslyn said...

holdfast said,

In this case the Democrats favor laws that will hurt the law-abiding, potentially create new "criminals" who were previously law abiding citizens, and have no effect on the actual violent criminals who are the problem.

"Hurt." Poor you, if there was an assault weapon ban. That and high-capacity magazines are the ONLY proposals in Congress.

NPR is considered flaming liberal here. Yet NPR had a guest commenter who had studied gun violence, and said that there was no evidence an assault weapon ban would significantly reduce gun murders; but a high-capacity magazine ban likely would. Whatsa matter, you gonna clutch your 30-round magazines to your chest, claiming you'll die without it?


And yet prosecutions for actual gun crimes - beaking the existing laws - are down under Obama from the Bush years.


Perhaps you'd like to note that so is violent crime in general?

barribarri said...

It's true that Democrats tend not to link mental health with crime any more, with the exception of the movement to involuntarily commit sex offenders to mental institutions, which has largely been bipartisan, with opposition from libertarians and some liberals Democrats. My sense is this is because the law-and-order folks were basically right and won the debate.

Do you have any facts to back up your contention that mental illness is linked to crime ... especially violent crime?

Or, does it not matter to you?

Or, do you follow the circular argument that anyone who commits a violent crime is, by definition, mentally ill?

Nonapod said...

Schizophrenia is the mental illness most commonly associated with violence

I thought Antisocial Personality Disorder was popularly associated with violent crime than Schizophrenia. Is ASPD even considered a mental illness though?

barribarri said...

In presenting figures for schizophrenics and violent crime, I didn’t even broach the subject of race as it relates to percentage of violent crime committed; but you should be aware that if Ann Althouse's illogical and EVIL argument succeeds, it will set the precedent — logically, and INEVITABLY — for the imprisonment of all black people. This is why there is a VALID Slippery Slope argument to be made against this push to “Institutionalize”.
Go on, say it. Say, “That could never happen here”. Ann either wants it to, or cannot understand that the arguments are the same.

AF said...

any notion of an inherent link between madness and violence is as morally unthinkable as an inherent link between blackness and violence would be.

What are you talking about? The whole premise of involuntary commitment is that there is an inherent link between some forms of mental illness and violence.

Nonapod said...

Ann Althouse's illogical and EVIL argument

You seem to be under the impression that Althouse is advocating the imprisonment of all Schizophrenics or something.

I Callahan said...

And yet prosecutions for actual gun crimes - beaking the existing laws - are down under Obama from the Bush years.

This is by design. If gun crime goes up because gun crime isn't being prosecuted, then the left has more ammo (pardon the term) to push full-on gun control.

Marshal said...

barribarri said...
Marshal,
So, mental illness is now a crime?

And "everyone agrees"?

Well, you, Ann, and Hitler, anyway.


I'm sure this makes sense to exactly you. Republicans are not using this incident to pass a law making mental illness a crime.

I Callahan said...

I don't think mental illness is the issue here. The issue is our coarse culture - TV, movies, music, and yes, kids playing violent video games. The lack of people with a moral compass (the flat-out removal of morality from the public sphere).

There have always been crazies. There have always been guns. There has NOT always been the type of culture we have in this country, and I blame the WWII generation for raising a bunch of spoiled brat baby-boomers, who are a direct cause of all of this.

I Callahan said...

Republicans are not using this incident to pass a law making mental illness a crime.

barribarri's comments are exactly why we can't have an "intelligent" conversation on guns in this country. That strawman was wicker-man sized.

Pogo said...

The first and primary duty of any government is the safety of its citizens.

Failure to do that makes the government illegitimate on its face.

Fewer guns have not meant greater safety in any nation.

Instead, it has meant fascism and Big Brother in England, and rampant crimes against subjects no longer allowed to defend themselves.

The progressives in the USA want fascist control over its citizens, from guns to cars to food and light bulbs. It will never stop, until we have a second civil war or the economy collapses.

edutcher said...

Have to disagree with the idea the Demos are for law and order.

As Marshal and holdfast note, the demos are into not letting a good crisis go to waste and, under the guise of pushing for law and order, but limiting the Constitutional rights of Americans.

traditionalguy said...

Yes. The Dems of 1960 through 1998 were god men and women with a point of view that favored the oppressed/poor.

Think you mean '92, not '98, tg.

shiloh said...

If Althouse gets killed by a deranged student, c'est la vie ...

Indeed, as it's an imperfect world and striving for a more perfect union is useless!


Still getting a laugh out of all this?

All those dead little kids?

C'mon, wiseass, you're so smart; what's your big solution?

I Callahan said...

The progressives in the USA want fascist control over its citizens, from guns to cars to food and light bulbs. It will never stop, until we have a second civil war or the economy collapses.

I think that's where we're headed.

Michael Haz said...

Meanwhile, the mentally ill live on the streets or — once they've acted out — are incapacitated in prisons, and one hears very little concern about it from Democrats.

Beacuse the mentally ill are not reliable voters or campaign donors. Otherwise, they Dems would embrace them avery two years or so.

Pogo said...

Oh, they're reliable voters all right.

Others vote for them, happens all the time.

edutcher said...

I Callahan said...

The progressives in the USA want fascist control over its citizens, from guns to cars to food and light bulbs. It will never stop, until we have a second civil war or the economy collapses.

I think that's where we're headed.


Precisely. And we'll get both.

dreams said...

I saw the Dem Congresswoman from Connecticut on CNBC yesterday, the economist Larry Lindsey had said that one of the problems with our current laws regarding guns and the mentally ill is that mental health professionals are not allowed to notify the police about someone who should not get a gun because his privacy rights had to be protected so that person would never show up on a database for those who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. The Congresswoman while stating that we should have a debate on gun control demagogued and filibustered so as to not address the issue. I think Dem politicians are all about politics not solving problems.

dreams said...

"Beacuse the mentally ill are not reliable voters or campaign donors. Otherwise, they Dems would embrace them avery two years or so."

Actually they're very reliable Dem voters because every election the homeless are rounded up by the Dems to vote for the Democrats either by absent tee or otherwise. You're right though its all about the Dems getting reelected.

Mike said...

It's time to review the Democrat approach to lawmaking.

1. First step is usually demagoguery, because the BEST law is one you can't or won't write because "Republicans" would block it: i.e. the current kerfuffle on "gun control" will be one such law that won't be written.

2. Second choice is usually actually write a law that has no chance of passage. Since these are essentially make-work projects with no hope of enactment, the laws can be simply stated, even simplistic in form. This is a variation on Theme 1 above, and is usually executed for the sole purpose of using as an example at a later date to satisfy a campaign meme that requires propping up: i.e. "We wrote a law giving womyn equal pay but the damned Republicans blocked it in committee."

3. The penultimate choice is to create a lengthy, overcomplicated law that appears on its face to do one thing (), but actually accomplishes either the exact opposite (Son of TARP does not remove government guarantee of investments; it makes "too big to fail" the law of the land) or is written in such a vague manner as to require reams of rule-making at a later date to make the law effective (Dodd-Frank) or both (Obamacare).

Number three is especially germane to current discussions of "gun control" because actually solving any problem is politically unfeasible, and unwise should one wish to raise money for future campaigns. Thus the expired Assault Weapons Ban is a perfect example. It did not outlaw any known class of weapons, but essentially just made "scary looking" guns more difficult and expensive to purchase. And like "anti-poverty" laws, such gun laws are valued for their very fecklessness. After all, if we ever won the War on Poverty what would Jesse Jackson et al do for a living?

Please commit these three Democratic Law Making acts to memory as you will be tested in the future.

Mike said...

Yes I left off number 4. Something for later!

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ricpic said...

Educated and compassionate are paired. Why? Compassion is the first impulse of the female. It has no more to do with being educated than does the impulse of the male to defend and protect his territory, primarily his woman and child. Compassionate is only privileged and coupled with educated because we are living in a wildly feminized culture.

junyo said...

Nowadays, everyone's for law and order

Nowadays, both parties are, at their core, comprised of statist control freaks. They drew straws to see who would push for the control of what.

shiloh said...

Althouse, when your #1 doting, trained pet seal says something intelligent which adds to the discussion, give him a hug.

Oh hell, give him a hug just because ...

I Callahan said...

Althouse, when your #1 doting, trained pet seal says something intelligent which adds to the discussion, give him a hug.

Do you have something to actually add to the discussion, or not?

prairie wind said...

Republicans used to stress "law and order," and Democrats — sounding more educated and compassionate — said we needed to look at the "root causes" of crime.

Dems caught on when Dukakis was defeated after the GOP used his compassion (release of Willie Horton) against him. Now the Dems want to be just as tough on crime as the GOP.

They are beginning to ease up on the drug war but only because a new bad guy is out there: the dreaded sex offender. (Hide your kids, hide your wife.) They can pile on the laws and punishment for sex offenders because America seems to be led by its emotions instead of by reason. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates and yet they are the ones who face civil commitment for life. And those who aren't committed? Well, we can still keep them in the system for life through the sex offender registry.

Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible for this pile of shit. None of them can resist the lure of "tough on crime" laws.

Quayle said...

As someone said, When the lust for freedom destroys order, very shortly thereafter the lust for order will destroy freedom.

And so it goes.

dreams said...

"Do you have any facts to back up your contention that mental illness is linked to crime ... especially violent crime?"

Here is a good site for info on the mentally ill and our current situation.

"Thus deinstitutionalization has helped create the mental illness crisis by discharging people from public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that they received the medication and rehabilitation services necessary for them to live successfully in the community. Deinstitutionalization further exacerbated the situation because, once the public psychiatric beds had been closed, they were not available for people who later became mentally ill, and this situation continues up to the present. Consequently, approximately 2.2 million severely mentally ill people do not receive any psychiatric treatment."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html

Paul Zrimsek said...

What I'm talking about, AF, is:

Democrats tend not to link mental health with crime any more

One of yours, I believe. And that liberals actually link mental health with crime all the time once they get down to cases only reinforces my point-- which is that denying such a link is a mere conventional piety. Conventional pieties always come in for that sort of treatment.

AF said...

Paul,

I'm going to assume you misunderstood me in good faith. I meant that liberals don't tend to focus on mental health when they talk about fighting crime -- not that they deny that the mentally ill commit crimes!

Ann Althouse said...

@leslyn What possesses you to express yourself here so dickishy? Do you ever consider addressing me with respect? Do you have a compulsion to distort everything I say?

Seriously. If you don't give me an adequate answer to that question, I will never respond personally to you again.

Colonel Angus said...

I mentioned this in a previous thread and I think it bears repeating. I've heard from various sources including outlets such as MSNBC and CNN that there are over 100 million guns in the US. According to the FBI, there were 8775 homicides by firearm in 2010 which comes to .01% of all guns in the country.

Quite frankly, I was surprised there where as few murders, (11,000+ if I recall) so at the risk of sounding like a shallow bastard, its basically a statistical anomaly that someone might be murdered by a gun.

Then again, when you dig deeper in the FBI data you will find a large number of those murders are within a, ahem, certain demographic. Dig deeper and you find motive being drug related. Remove those data points and suddenly the body count rapidly plummets. These are important concepts to consider when someone says there is little gun crime in Norway or Switzerland, countries with a high rate of gun ownership. Such comparisons only work if you include other factors such as culture and demographics.

n.n said...

The progress of indigent and even homeless Americans is a good indication that our policies are not working. That legal and illegal immigrants receive greater opportunities and aid than Americans is a good indication that our policies are not working. That routine health care is not affordable without insurance is a good indication that our policies are not working. That higher education is not affordable without grants and loans is a good indication that our policies are not working. That we run trillion dollar account deficits (without representation) thereby devaluing capital and labor is a good indication that our policies are not working.

We should also probably address the progress of dysfunctional behaviors. Our efforts to distort reality are counterproductive and unsustainable.

CWJ said...

Over my lifetime, the desire to solve problems by treating "root causes" vs. the desire to control surface symptoms, has migrated back and forth across the political spectrum.

The thing I've ultimately learned from this is that the approach argued is determined by politics first, and principled belief second if at all. The actual measurable effectiveness of the solutions proposed matters not at all.

Michael Haz said...

@leslyn What possesses you to express yourself here so dickishy (sic)?

Althouse, please use a different word in this instance. Perhaps cuntishly is more appropriate.

Thanks,

The guys.

mccullough said...

Colonel Angus,

The interesting thing about the demographics is that of all the states with a high percentage of whites, West Virginia is the only one with a relatively high homicide rate (4.5 per 100,000).

A lot of social science ink has been spilled discussing this phenomenon because West Virginia has a relatively high percentage of Scots-Irish. Even controlling for income and education level, the Scots-Irish have a higher level of violence than other white ethnic groups. They have a clan/tribal mentality.

In the U.S. Native Americans, Latinos, Blacks, and the Scots-Irish have a higher homicide rate. They are all a bit more tribal than the rest.

Alex said...

Funny it's reversed. Monday I hear Rush Limbaugh talking about the need to understand the root causes of these mass shooters. What the hell has happened with the world?

Alex said...

leslyn - as always you find a way to be provoked and victimized. Fuck off already.

Alex said...

Yes leslyn has been cuntish lately.

Inga said...

And Alex, the Moby Dick acts cuntishly:)

Alex said...

Inga has been rather nitwitish lately.

Alex said...

Yes you Inga - you poopy head.

I Callahan said...

Such comparisons only work if you include other factors such as culture and demographics.

Unfortunately, the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons would get apopletctic shock if this were discussed.

barribarri said...

Marshal,
I apologize. My comment: "So, mental illness is now a crime?"
was meant to have been addressed to AF. Specifically in regard to his comment "It's true that Democrats tend not to link mental health with crime any more."

Although I am not a Democrat. And AF has restated this comment, anyway in response to someone else who also misinterpreted him.

barribarri said...

Nonapod: You seem to be under the impression that Althouse is advocating the imprisonment of all Schizophrenics or something.

Yes, I am. From this and a series of her recent posts. If this is not the case, Ann MIGHT wish to think about specifying exactly who she wishes were imprisoned and WHY, instead of referencing ALL of the "Mentally Ill" (HER words) in her desire for "Institutionalization".

barribarri said...

Dreams,
I asked a somewhat specific question which neither you, nor Ann, nor any other commenter has addressed despite gratuitous assertions to the contrary.

Inga said...

Just a word about respect, it's like good sex, sometimes ya have to give a little to get a little.

Methadras said...

Democrats love the sound and fury of their own voices even though they continually signify nothing.

leslyn said...

Ann Althouse said...
@leslyn What possesses you to express yourself here so dickishy? Do you ever consider addressing me with respect? Do you have a compulsion to distort everything I say?

Seriously. If you don't give me an adequate answer to that question, I will never respond personally to you again.


You run a blog If you required everyone on it to "address you" with "respect" you'd lose a lot of clientele.

Listen, I thik some of your statements are silly, some are thin, some are just meant to provoke, not be taken seriously. Is that not said by MANY people? I don't call you EVIL or compare you to Hitler. I don't do a LOT of things that people do here about you.

I don't know why you zero in on me like a heat-seeking missile, but if it floats your boat, go ahead.

leslyn said...

Geez, Methadras, you and your avatar only need to look in a mirror.

Big Mike said...

The Democrats don't react to mass murder with pleas to understand mental illness, economic strains, and cultural malaise anymore. They offer tougher laws (in the form of gun control).

More to the point they offer laws that haven't worked in the past, and show no signs of working in the future.

But it makes them feel good. They've "done something." Solve the problem? No. Will they ever check back to determine whether they've made things better or made things worse? No.

But they can f-e-e-e-e-l g-o-o-o-d.

And that's all that counts.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I meant that liberals don't tend to focus on mental health when they talk about fighting crime -- not that they deny that the mentally ill commit crimes!

Fair enough. Though I have heard quite a lot of people so denying, and I would guess they're mainly Democrats, I admit that's not the same thing as saying most Democrats deny it.

traditionalguy said...

SOMETHING must be done. The Lanza prick used a trigger finger to kill 5 and 6 year olds.

We must cut off all trigger fingers on sight.

It's for the children. Who can deny them that!

And the little ones can all be fingerectomied at birth. We WILL stop this.

Alex said...

tradguy - yet you demonize George Z. for exercising his right of self defense against a guy who was pummeling him.

traditionalguy said...

Alex...You and poor little George Zimmerman have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

And after the trial, then be sure to let me know that you are the one who guessed right and picked the crafty Zimmerman story over the one told by the dead boy Martin.

But HAVE THE TRIAL first!