What the Shooting Really Means

By Steve Scheetz

Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords through the brain. From the moment I read the story, the only true fact that can be ascertained is that simple statement. Currently, there are people on the left blaming “right wing extremists” for this action, and then we have those on the right suggesting left wing ties.

In the meantime, we have people posting their rambling rants while pointing fingers saying: “AH-HA! This is why he did it.” It can be certain that none of these “analysts” have psychology degrees, nor have they spent any time with the shooter; therefore, it is not possible for any of the couch analysts to determine anything at all.

What is perhaps more horrifying is the political jockeying already underway. From the changing of the gunman’s name throughout the day from “Jared Loughner” to “Jared Lee Loughner” to the description of his gun as an “assault pistol” with an “extended magazine.” We have seen these catch phrases used by those pushing gun control. Does it really matter what type of gun he shot Gabrielle Giffords through the brain with? Does that really help to report what happened? Not at all. Wikipedia has been inundated with political innuendo in its posting of the shooting. Fortunately, and to its credit, these items have been taken down, but seeing some of the postings before they are taken down brings up the next point.

Currently, the people of the United States are being spun into a vortex that leads to complete government control over their lives. From the Non-Terrorist “terrorism” that has enabled corporatists to deliver $14 Billion dollars in sales funded by money that was supposed to “Stimulate the whole of the economy” to “Internet Safety Bills,” to “Fairness Doctrines” designed to keep commentators from gaining too much power. It does not help that government has been spinning economic news so as to paint a rosier picture than what reality happens to be, and given the fact that more people are seeing reality, the more Unconstitutional power has to be given to various bureaucracies. Take for example the new FCC regulations on the internet, and the expanse of power against the internet from the Commerce Department.

This event seems to help our nation step in the direction of complete corporatist fascism the likes of which resemble Italy under Mussolini. Some in our nation have been doing their best to steer us in that direction, but events like this one allow them to say things like: “We just need more power to protect the people of the United States. We will not take more than is necessary, we will not keep it longer than necessary.” Do we really want to live under a fascist regime, or do we wish to live as a free people?

12 responses to “What the Shooting Really Means

  1. Be sure to see the film Innocents Betrayed to remember why it is a basic human right to keep and bear arms.

  2. “basic human right to keep and bear arms”

    So how the theory goes: “If this congresswomen had the gun she would have been live?” I guess you should have the “right” to have land-mines around your house, car. Or, maybe RPG-7; why not M61 Vulcan? Define you enemy. You are so ridiculous.

    Human right should be about life and everything what life make more enjoyable, weapons and arms does not fit that definition . Unless you advocate type of society such as US, the predatory one. Please, do define “basic”.

    And yet, you recommend to watch that movie. Since I am clueless what would be the message from that movie? Please, do open my eyes!

    • Clueless, your response has nothing to do with the original piece, or “Innocence Betrayed.” Gabriel Giffords was gunned down by someone who met with her previously, who walked up close enough to be considered point blank range (less than a foot away…)

      Your absurd suggestion of an RPG or a Vulcan Canon, which are typically vehicle mounted, would be utterly useless. Might as well have asked about detonating a NUKE a foot away to keep the bad man at bay. While this could have been made as a jest, you have so completely missed the point of my article and the video that I am thinking your ignorance must be willful.

      The film discusses the steps totalitarians have taken, repeatedly, in order to provide ethnic cleansing for their respective societies. Those espousing fascism have used these same certain techniques to control the people, and the first step is to remove guns from the hands of those who might begin to question actions being taken.

      Should you ever read the writings of the founders, you would see a group of people who knew that gun ownership helped to protect life and everything that was good about it. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who have the right and the duty to defend a FREE state, and that includes protecting each other’s lives/rights.

      My piece is about big government using events such as this to take away the rights of the people and bring about more control of the population. The Film also made this point by giving historical examples of government taking control of its population.

      I hope you think on this.

  3. If war did not provide the results we identify with “success,” everyone would relinquish their use of arms immediately. Violence to end violence would be transcended. We could move forward.

    No one has yet provided such results. Every known case of nonviolents seriously confronting violents results in the death of the nonviolents. Their ideas live on, but it could be 1,000 or more years before their dreams become reality.

    A Course In Miracles refers to the human desire to bring the spiritual into the physical as “level confusion.” All are one and part of the “Sonship”, yet we delude ourselves into believing we are where we are not.

    We see the attack yet we delusionally believe we can just wish it away, neglecting to account for the fact that we saw the attack as an attack in the first place. Trust me, once we see an attack as an attack, we need to pull our heads out of our collective asses and respond, in kind, at the level we believe the attack has occurred. Like an insane person, we learn that we have dominion over our world, yet we think we can stop a charging city bus with the force of our will. The universe of which we are a part, does not work this way.

    To be effective, a commitment to nonviolence has to be total and pure. Attack cannot be seen as attack in order to deflect it nonviolently.

    No one I have ever met is that perfect or pure in their commitment to nonviolence. The collective will of our fellows is just too strong to discount or shine away.

    So, give up your arms if you wish and take your chances. I’m sticking with mine until they are no longer necessary. I won’t be pointing them at those who are merely more wealthy than myself; I’ll be pointing them at those who are so wealthy they believe they can crush us with their imaginary currencies, their “fake blood” of fellowship.

  4. Richard, agreed.

  5. Couldn’t it just be that Lougner was a little off the beam? The thing that I find interesting is that in the aftermath, while Giffords fights for her life, other members of Congress are suddenly afraid that their asses will be next, hence the tabling of the health care issue “for the moment”. Sort of like when John Lennon was killed, Paul McCartney hired extra bodyguards! What does THAT say? Do they take it personally, do they think its their rhetoric and/or policy? OR, (and this is likely giving them more credit than is due) do they have a glimmer of how outraged our society is becoming/has become, and are they getting the willies?

  6. “As far as the article’s author demanding psychology degrees and such from “couch analysts”, which I suppose he means; armchair analysts…let’s see your PhD. in literature Scheetz.”

    Not sure how to respond to this other than to say that I am NOT the one making any analysis on Mr. Lougner. I am criticizing those who are, particularly those who have the facts as presented by the news articles as opposed to the facts as posed by meeting with the perpetrator himself.

    Further, a PhD. in literature would not help with the analysis in question. Not sure as to why you are complaining at all given the fact that we are in agreement as far as your response to clueless goes.

    regarding everything else? I am not prepared to make my analysis based on what appeared on youtube. while I only have 20 years worth of intelligence analysis and training, the first thing I learned is to keep an open mind with regard to what people say because there is much difficulty in discerning whether (or not) people are lying based on their you-tube videos.

    Based on what I saw during my time within the intelligence community, your statement that this is some sort of psyops operation is something out of Alex Jones’s imagination.

    Intelligence analysis requires a worst case scenario, but that worst case scenario also demands fact, not supposition.

    Ciao, CZ

    • Hey whack job, Glock 17 magazines are manufactured in 10, 17, 19, and 31 round configurations. You certainly are no expert on firearms. I don’t know which bullshit link I clicked on to wind up here, I sure hope Big Brother is taking a dump right now and not monitoring the fact that my IP is parked at this site. If you guys buy into these Manchurian Candidate rants I have some new tinfoil hats to sell you. I think yours may be a bit to tight.

  7. Morgana, yes, it is possible. I knew people who were “off the beam” and they always hung out with others who were off the beam. We have no facts to go on in this case, so it is impossible to say for sure what (if anything) was actually going through his mind at the time of the shooting.

  8. btw, Milo Nickles has a couple short pieces at http://fivecentrevolution.com/default.asp

    His main point is that this event is being used to amp up the attack on political speech by those who call him a Right Winger…

    From his part 1 blog (which for some reason I can’t access right now), he says the shooter is not a Constitutionalist, nor a Libertarian, nor a Tea Partier. The shooter is psychotic (or whatever term he used).

    From his part 2:

    “… the media is certainly pushing an agenda and teaching us how to think. Through this type of indoctrination, many people will start believing that “right wing” views are dangerous, and start treating people with those views differently — calling in “tips,” conducting surveillance, forcing them into counseling, and costing them their jobs. We won’t need “thought police,” because the mainstream media is teaching us to police each other’s thoughts….

    “This type of rhetoric, whereby we blame the acts of madmen on views they may share with sane people, sends us down a dangerous path of the government and mass media telling us what we are allowed to believe — lest we be labeled ‘threats.'”

  9. also… I don’t see any conflict between Steve’s article and a Manchurian Candidate scenario. The ideas are not mutually exclusive

  10. Well, just as an aside, I was watching and listening to some stuff mainstream this AM, and I DID notice that the alleged perp was continually referred to as “an American extremist” and alot of references made to “other American extremists”, so Willie, I am inclined to begin to agree with the your theory(ies) on this guy and this incident…on the other hand and to play devil’s advocate, if they get us all thinking and blogging away at every little episode and whether it is psyops or not, then don’t they win a battle (thought not the war) by making many many people “extremists” and “paranoics” and could it be that we are manipulated this way as well, and could we also possibly miss other little ops of theirs along the way while we argue about one big one? Just spitballing here…we could become so obsessed with ops when sometimes a cigar is just a cigar???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s