Arizona shooting victim arrested after threat to tea party leader

Interesting that he is a naval air veteran. All the other articles that I've read hasn't mentioned that at all only that he was as the LA Times has it:

James Eric Fuller, a 63-year-old Democratic activist, was arrested after shouting "You're dead!" at Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries, said Pima County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jason Ogan. Fuller was shot in the knee and back Jan. 8 when a gunman opened fire, killing six and injuring 13, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Good to see AP staying true to form on there reporting standards.

Jeez. The stupidity continues. Is there going to be a civil war?

If he owns guns, I hope they take them off him even if the psych test doesn't show a problem (he did make a threat to kill someone). If they'd done the same to the guy who killed the original 6 after he was kicked out of college with "issues", then perhaps all this could have been avoided. The last thing we want is mentally unstable people with guns.

Libs like this should not be gun owners.

Yet more proof that leftists are dangerous.

RR

Libs like this should not be gun owners.

So you are saying that republicans "like that" can own them and are safe? Not sure what world you live in but no-one "like that" should own a gun. Agreed?

what the hell is the media doing? having "a televised town hall meeting" before the funerals? what did they expect? oh yeah a boost in their ratings.

@sailwind all coverage I've seen mentioned Fuller being a veteran.

It's romeoworld where everything is black and white. It's nuts like that who should be deprived from firearms, no matter which political direction they shriek.

Libs like this should not be gun owners.

I don't think your politics has anything to do with it....it's your state of mental health and ability to be a responsible gun owner that should determine your gun ownership status. In my opinion that would mean most people wouldn't qualify (globally I mean, not picking on Americans here). Guns and their accessories, on a daily basis being modified and improved, have only purpose....to be able to kill human beings more effectively, in greater numbers, and allowing one to efficiently reload to do so again. It then relies on the individuals judgement as to whether the gun should be used in a such a fashion. The fact that criminals and practically anyone in America can so freely gain access to a gun just shows me that America doesn't realise or accept this or they would have better regulations which they actually enforce rather than just pay lip-service to. (Now I am picking on America).

Politics in America have become a release ground for some people's mental issues. This dem activist has gone and given ammo to the radical right, who are looking at any excuse to divert attention from gung-ho ads and websites and their own large contribution to the hate politics and the stupidity that has gotten a hold on the tired two-party "democracy".

If you are American and old enough to recall the far far more violent 60s all you can do is laugh at some of the attempts at analyzing the current US political scene.

and of course, with bond markets crashing, record numbers of foreclosures, gas inching towards 100/barrel it is so much easier to focus on Sarah Palin, if you are an Obama fan.

Interesting you cite the 60's old chum, especially as that was the time Kennedy snr basically created the foundations of the hate politics that are reaching implosion today, whilst heading what would be JFK successful bid.

"and of course, with bond markets crashing, record numbers of foreclosures, gas inching towards 100/barrel it is so much easier to focus on Sarah Palin, if you are an Obama fan."

How do you expect anyone not suffering from mypoic partisan dementia to interpret your last?

The stalemate of the two party system is the problem. End that and the hysteria might just end. Their are plenty of cranks on the left and the right.

If you are American and old enough to recall the far far more violent 60s all you can do is laugh at some of the attempts at analyzing the current US political scene.

Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh?

[Tea Party leader] Trent Humphries suggested that conversations about gun control be delayed until all the dead were buried....Elsewhere in town, an organization called Crossroads of the West held a gun show, one of many it hosts in several Western states.

So, conversations about gun control should be delayed until the dead are buried, but let the gun shows go on? Shows where the Tea Party's priorities lie.

"So, conversations about gun control should be delayed until the dead are buried, but let the gun shows go on? Shows where the Tea Party's priorities lie."

Is the Tea Party sponsoring the event? I doubt it. Gun culture is in-grained in US culture - if it weren't for the death of a Judge and a Congresswoman, this would have been "just another US spree-killing".

The Tea Party will shriek itself to death without helping it along by alluding to things that aren't true.

If Fuller owns guns, and let's hope he doesn't, they should be confiscated immediately. No one issuing that kind of threat should be granted the privilege to possess the lethal firepower to carry it out.

On the other hand, what can we say about the South Carolina gun company that recently issued a "Joe Wilson special" handgun with the words "You Lie!" emblazoned on it. Imagine that, a gun company issuing a firearm that commemorates/celebrates a verbal assault against the President of the United States.

I thought that had been censured!

Is the Tea Party sponsoring the event?

No. Nor is the Tea Party sponsoring a serious debate on gun laws. But the Tea Party is well within its rights to suggest putting off of either until the dead are buried.

I thought that had been censured!

A number of supposed adults thought it was a good enough product concept to take it through to production and putting up for sale.

Strange that the Liberals always try to tag conservatives as "racist" "bigotted" "heartless" "homophobes" and twist any word they can around to decipher it in the most negetive way if a conservative speaks. Liberals even made a campaign issue out of Scott Brown (Massachusets) for driving a pick up truck, claiming it was "code" for his racist views. Liberals are the most intolerant and devisive people. Juan Williams realized this when he got fired from NPR.

A man being arrested and sent to psychiatric hospital because of expressing himself publicly ... That reminds me old stories from former USSR... Americans, take care of your democracy !

Strange that the Liberals always try to tag conservatives as "racist" "bigotted" "heartless" "homophobes" and twist any word they can around to decipher it in the most negetive way if a conservative speaks.

Certainly you are not suggesting that there are not any racist/bigots/homophobes among the ranks of the conservatives. And it would be ludicrous and false to suggest that all liberals attempt to brand all conservatives as such.

Liberals even made a campaign issue out of Scott Brown (Massachusets) for driving a pick up truck, claiming it was "code" for his racist views.

Completely false. Conservatives actually made an issue out of a complete misinterpretation of an open question -- answered in the negative -- on Olbermann's show regarding the truck.

Certainly you are not suggesting that there are not any racist/bigots/homophobes among the ranks of the conservatives.

Do you have any proof that there are any conservative racist/bigots/homophobes? Everyone knows every single conservative is wise, pure of heart and only has the best intentions, while liberals all have hearts as black as the darkest night. I think that was the basis of Badsey's claim that all "Libs like this should not be gun owners".

It's all OK to have a bit of fun and put-down the "other side", but what is a little scary is that some people might actually start believing what they say here. An interesting fact I recently found while doing some research on another topic: the number of murders (as a % of population) in the U.S. just about halved during the 90's and has remained steady for the ten years since. What does this mean? The U.S. is a much safer place than it was 20 years ago. Before we all weep and wail about the world falling apart, we should ponder this fact.

Now that the initial rush by the American news media to turn this tragedy into an anti-conservative story is over, it is clear that Loughner was not influenced by the rough and tumble of American political debate but by the deteriorating state of his own mental health. Even partisans such as President Obama himself understands this.

It is ironic that the blame-game started by Paul Krugman just a few hours after the shooting and quickly followed by many other irresponsible media figures has resulted in a huge increase in the number of death threats against Tea Party members, Palin and others that were unjustly implicated by them. Will they now blame themselves for Fullers' in person death threat? Well, of course not. Nor will we see much hay being made of this particular event either.

I don't believe that Fuller actually wanted to kill Humphries - although given the circumstances the precaution of temporarily detaining him is understandable. He was obviously deeply affected and upset by what happened to him and the others that were victimized by Loughner. It was definitely a mistake to allow him to participate in Amanpour's program. I have always disliked the fact that the media is always trying to put a microphone in front of people that have just been traumatized by a crime or tragedy. It is the worst kind of journalism because it prey's on the raw emotions of victims in order to generate a type of story that will help some journalists career and get high ratings for their particular media outlet. With the media pinning the blame (in this case unjustifiably) on some person or group it is easy to understand why the victims would lash out like this.

Now that the initial rush by the American news media to turn this tragedy into an anti-conservative story is over

Au contrere: The reverberations of "second amendment remedies," "if ballots won't work, then bullets will," and the desire for constituents "armed and dangerous" -- and dozens of other quasi-violent proclamations -- will continue to make their ripples felt at least as long as the next violent outburst by some "patriot" taking it out against the "traitorous" liberals and Democrats who are selling out our country to [insert your favorite bogey-man here].

"Palin and others that were unjustly implicated by them"

She used a map complete with gun-sights to identify her opponents. One of these oppenents taking a head-shot, whilst also being the nutter's mark for pete's sake.

Unjustified implication my foot.

You spelt au contraire wrong, Yabits! Brace yourself!!

I really pity American people, living with the dread of being shot because every psychopat can get a gun in the land of the free.

The extreme liberal left is just as dangerous as the extreme right wing. The funny thing is that they came blaming Sara Palin (an idiot) for inciting this violence. But when the shoe is on the other foot... Well it just still remains the right wing's fault because of something like the availability of guns in America.

The left just are pretty good at activating their own extreme fringe by blaming something like the Palin "targets" and the Tea Party for the violence to justify their own. Masters of deception I'd say.

If anything it should be a lesson that gung-ho bravado has no place in politics. The left have some crazies to be sure, but popular support for screamers like Palin or commentators like Limbaugh scares the hell out of me.

....a man wounded in the attack was arrested and taken for a psychiatric exam after an outburst at a town hall meeting, during which he took a picture of a tea party leader and yelled “you’re dead,” authorities say....

....Ogan said deputies decided he needed a mental health evaluation and he was taken to a hospital, which will determine when he will be released....

FINALLY, the Sheriff's deputies take a deranged individual into custody for threatening society. Why didn't the Sheriff allow his deputies to take Jared Loughner into custody BEFORE he started shooting?

The system seems to work if only the Sheriff had done his job.

The extreme liberal left is just as dangerous as the extreme right wing.

Well, overlooking the contradiction of "extreme" and "liberal," it's like saying that a T-rex is as dangerous as a great white shark. The extreme left being a creature that died out long ago, while the sharks still swim among us.

Masters of deception I'd say.

We liberals are given a constant stream of examples of how those on the right wing deceive themselves. I tip my liberal hat to the real masters of deception.

Why didn't the Sheriff allow his deputies to take Jared Loughner into custody BEFORE he started shooting?

More unintended humor no doubt. I do understand the need by the right to scapegoat one sheriff.

However, a system that enables a deranged fellow like Loughner to acquire the kind of weapon and ammunition he did has got far more wrong with it than a single sheriff.

I do understand the need by the right to scapegoat one sheriff.

Too bad you don't understand the need by the left to scapegoat Palin.

She used a map complete with gun-sights to identify her opponents. One of these oppenents taking a head-shot, whilst also being the nutter's mark for pete's sake.

You guys are still trying to push this? Get over it man, that didn't fly. No one bought into your silly little scheme. In fact, I suspect this attempt to falsely portray things actually hurt the left wings credibility far more then you can imagine. Particularly the MSM who pushed that story for days before finally backing down amid a mountain of evidence that it was nonsense.

Palin's stupidity and those around is what has implicated her.

That said, I'm sure she had no idea this tragedy would happen.

Hang this intolerant bastard! In the wake of a tragedy, he calls for more murder? Hang him! Hang him high!

yabits - More unintended humor no doubt. I do understand the need by the right to scapegoat one sheriff.

However, a system that enables a deranged fellow like Loughner to acquire the kind of weapon and ammunition he did has got far more wrong with it than a single sheriff.

Hahahaha. Yes, the one sherrif who has the authority to take Fuller off the streets for threatening to kill someone but could NOT be bothered to deal with the repeated threats and bizarre actions and videos of Loughner.

The sheriff is elected and will only lose his job unlike the people who were killed and injured because of his incompetence and inability to do the job he was elected to do.

And then their was all that nonesense about "blood libel". The woman is a hoot...

Blood libel was referring to those who falsely implicating her in the attacks that claimed the lives of 6 people. Its an appropriate term to describe these kinds of blatantly false allegations. Its sad that you seem determined to insist, despite all the evidence, even when the most vicious anti-palin haters are backing off, that she still bears some responsibility for this nutcase. Truly, truly sad.

Out of curiosity, are you one of those, who if someone says Palin, you start foaming at the mouth? Just curious, you seem to be so focused on her, I can't help but wonder.

I wonder about the guy involved in this. He was shot by the nutcase, and then goes off on a guy for saying that he thinks we should wait for calm before discussing new legislation. Actually, now that I think about it, he sounds like Madverts kinda guy.

I understand his surprise. All week he and his cohorts have been arguing that their language and symbols have no power to influence. Which is why Humpheries blamed Giffords (even though last year told Giffords to relax when someone showed up with a gun) before anyone was buried.

Mmmm tough one. Responsibility for one's actions does included what you say. It's not a left-right issue, it's life.

And of course CNN yesterday, giving the story, scrubs footage of this guy screaming his death threats in a public forum.

The interesting thing here about Palin is that can't get things right even when she is. Of course she was libeled, there was never and still isn't any evidence that the shooter was influenced specifically by the political atmosphere. Now maybe you can argue that a mentally unstable person is influenced in a general way by the society around him, but you can't blame Palin for that. So what does she do in this situation? She wraps herself up in her sense of victimization and narcissism and shoots herself in the foot. You think some people didn't hope / know she would do that?

Join the real world Palin fans. Who do think pumped the idea that she was being treated unfairly? The Republican machine got what they wanted from her and now they are going to get rid of her. Just watch.

donkusai:

If he owns guns, I hope they take them off him even if the psych test doesn't show a problem (he did make a threat to kill someone). If they'd done the same to the guy who killed the original 6 after he was kicked out of college with "issues", then perhaps all this could have been avoided. The last thing we want is mentally unstable people with guns.

arrestpaul:

FINALLY, the Sheriff's deputies take a deranged individual into custody for threatening society. Why didn't the Sheriff allow his deputies to take Jared Loughner into custody BEFORE he started shooting?

The system seems to work if only the Sheriff had done his job.

THANK YOU! That's what I've been saying all along!

KakiOko:

Guns and their accessories, on a daily basis being modified and improved, have only purpose....to be able to kill human beings more effectively, in greater numbers, and allowing one to efficiently reload to do so again. It then relies on the individuals judgement as to whether the gun should be used in a such a fashion.

Perhaps it's because history has shown that we can trust the judgment of legal gun owners.

The fact that criminals and practically anyone in America can so freely gain access to a gun just shows me that America doesn't realise or accept this or they would have better regulations which they actually enforce rather than just pay lip-service to.

I doubt it's as easy to get guns illegally as is so commonly portrayed in TV shows and movies. And we do have very good regulations in every state. Enforcement is the problem in some states.

Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh?

Yes. He hated politicians from both sides of America's political aisle with equal disdain.

GJ, this isn't about Palin. Get over your obsession with her.

yabits:

Nor is the Tea Party sponsoring a serious debate on gun laws.

Why should they? The appropriate laws (both gun-related and otherwise) were already in place to prevent such an atrocity. For the hundreth time in this debate, I'm reminding you that they were not enforced.

More unintended humor no doubt. I do understand the need by the right to scapegoat one sheriff.

However, a system that enables a deranged fellow like Loughner to acquire the kind of weapon and ammunition he did has got far more wrong with it than a single sheriff.

That's a pathetically desperate attempt to make excuses for one of your fellow Democrats.

We have laws on the books to prevent just such an atrocity and it's increasingly apparent that they weren't enforced. Neither you nor anyone else has suggested a reasonable, practical, or even possible solution.

Wolfpack:

I have always disliked the fact that the media is always trying to put a microphone in front of people that have just been traumatized by a crime or tragedy. It is the worst kind of journalism because it prey's on the raw emotions of victims in order to generate a type of story that will help some journalists career and get high ratings for their particular media outlet.

I agree completely. It has always been incredibly distasteful, and makes so many members of the media appear to be opportunistic, sociopathic vultures.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that 93% of the media votes Democrat? Oops, I did it again... ;)

Madverts:

She used a map complete with gun-sights to identify her opponents. One of these oppenents taking a head-shot, whilst also being the nutter's mark for pete's sake.

So did DailyKos (bullseyes, in that case). Is Markos Moulitas justly implicated as well?

By all accounts, Loughner has hated and been obsessed with Giffords since 2007, before Palin was known outside of Alaska. How come you refuse to acknowledge either of those points?

Kakioko Guns and their accessories, on a daily basis being modified and improved, have only purpose....to be able to kill human beings more effectively, in greater numbers, and allowing one to efficiently reload to do so again. It then relies on the individuals judgement as to whether the gun should be used in a such a fashion.

Whitehawk Perhaps it's because history has shown that we can trust the judgment of legal gun owners.

Then, Whitehawk, why is it so easy for people in America to ILLEGALLY obtain a gun?...because the government doesn't restrict them with enough laws and the authorities don't enforce the regulations imposed to restrict their sale to such responsible owners only, that's why, and the manufacturers and gun-dealers don't care what happens once the gun is sold and to who it is sold to. The land of the free has become the land of the gun-toting idiot.

Then, Whitehawk, why is it so easy for people in America to ILLEGALLY obtain a gun?...because the government doesn't restrict them with enough laws and the authorities don't enforce the regulations imposed to restrict their sale to such responsible owners only, that's why, and the manufacturers and gun-dealers don't care what happens once the gun is sold and to who it is sold to. The land of the free has become the land of the gun-toting idiot.

Please note what you just said. The logic in there, just fails. Illegal. You think that if there are more laws, then somehow, magically people will no longer be able to illegally acquire guns? Sorry, but that logic just doesn't hold up. The attempt to implicate gun dealers and manufacturers is pathetic as well.

Then, Whitehawk, why is it so easy for people in America to ILLEGALLY obtain a gun?...because the government doesn't restrict them with enough laws and the authorities don't enforce the regulations imposed to restrict their sale to such responsible owners only,

Here, again is what I posted:

Perhaps it's because history has shown that we can trust the judgment of legal gun owners.

Did you miss the part where I emphasized the word legal?

Once again: We have more than enough gun laws. We have less than enough enforcement.

Perhaps it's because history has shown that we can trust the judgment of legal gun owners.

The only certain constant that history shows is change. Where we might once upon a time have trusted anyone and everyone to purchase a weapon, things have changed.

There are no laws that are adequate to the task of keeping guns out of the hands of people prone to violence at the drop of a hat.

There are no laws that are adequate to the task of keeping guns out of the hands of people prone to violence at the drop of a hat.

I guess that means you won't be answering my previous question (Like what, exactly?) as you said you would on another thread.

It's true that there are no laws adequate to prevent violence. Yet there are those on the Left who seem to expect exactly that from yet more laws. The only practical solution is to prepare yourself. But that comes down to personal responsibility, to which those on the Left seem to be averse. Just think of it as wearing a motorcycle helmet, or wearing a seatbelt, or buying a car with airbags.

How ironic that the same people who want more laws to prevent violence ridicule those who prepare themselves in case of violence as "paranoid". Neither group wants to be the victim of violence. One group wants others to bear the responsibility, with more laws on top of other good laws which aren't always enforced. The other group embraces their own responsibility for themselves and uses a tactic proven effective for self-defense.

Just sayin'.

It's true that there are no laws adequate to prevent violence. Yet there are those on the Left who seem to expect exactly that from yet more laws.

This is something like saying that since quality control can't produce perfection, the answer is less quality control rather then more and better quality control.

The words "prevent violence" is a red herring. Laws should be made which absolutely prevent any person prone to violence from obtaining a weapon through normal channels. I understand that the "brains" in the NRA may not be attuned or astute enough to come up with such laws, but they are a relative no-brainer.

But that comes down to personal responsibility

So, I guess you are claiming that all the victims of the Tucson massacre weren't being personally responsible. On the other hand, enlightened people see the highest form of personal responsibility in seeing to it that violent people can't get easy access to guns as this crazed individual did.

This is something like saying that since quality control can't produce perfection, the answer is less quality control rather then more and better quality control.

Ah, but you just said:

There are no laws that are adequate to the task of keeping guns out of the hands of people prone to violence at the drop of a hat.

So are adequate laws possible, or aren't they? Pick one.

I understand that the "brains" in the NRA may not be attuned or astute enough to come up with such laws, but they are a relative no-brainer.

Well if they're a no-brainer, then how come nobody on the left has come up with them either? And that includes you, lad. I asked you before what laws are needed, and you said:

The answer to this is better suited to the thread on gun laws. I will post my response there.

... but you haven't. Still.

On the other hand, enlightened people see the highest form of personal responsibility in seeing to it that violent people can't get easy access to guns as this crazed individual did.

No, that's collective responsibility. Personal responsibility is when the individual bears the responsibility on their own.

"enlightened"... hahaha, for the love of...

Steps were taken. Laws were passed. One political hack sheriff didn't do his job and - you know the rest. You keep saying that there should be a "greater wall" put in place, but when asked for suggestions, you can't come up with anything. For all of your posturing and calling those who disagree with you as "too dumb", why you can't even answer your own questions, much less anybody else's?

why you can't

Should have read "why can't you".

Molenir, what's pathetic is that despite the laws and regulations, it is so damn easy to get a gun in America. That is because they are not enforced, allowing gun dealers to sell their guns to just anyone without fear of any punishments. And the gun manufavturers lobby to maintain this by slowing up the political wheels to change things. Whitehawk, Seems if America can't be responsible to handle and regulate gun ownership, it should be illegal to all. Here endeth the lesson, and the rhetoric.

Molenir, what's pathetic is that despite the laws and regulations, it is so damn easy to get a gun in America. That is because they are not enforced, allowing gun dealers to sell their guns to just anyone without fear of any punishments.

You were doing well, right up until that last bit. It's not the gun dealers. They have to obey state and federal laws such as not selling to anyone who doesn't pass the FBI background check. Gun dealers can lose their license - and many have. So claiming that they can "sell guns to anyone without fear of any punishment" is completely false.

Here in Tennessee, we have gun shows from time to time. People attempt to buy and sell guns in the parking lot outside the events, not knowing that there are vans, pickups and RVs with Metro police and TBI agents filming sales and photographing people and license plates. A lot of arrests and gun confiscations have resulted from those efforts. More states should follow that example.

And the gun manufavturers lobby to maintain this by slowing up the political wheels to change things.

How, exactly? Since the problem is a lack of enforcement of existing gun laws, how do the gun manufacturers "slow up the political wheels" of enforcing gun laws?

Seems if America can't be responsible to handle and regulate gun ownership, it should be illegal to all.

If America doesn't enforce the existing gun laws, how could it enforce a ban? Especially when bordering Mexico. Sorry, but that's an even more impractical and unrealistic solution than making alcohol illegal, which we tried before.

Here endeth the lesson, and the rhetoric.

Teaching is a two-way street. Have you learned anything from this discussion? Or did you think you were here solely to teach those who actually live in America and own guns?

By the way, did you know that more women have carry permits in Tennessee than men? By an almost 3-1 ratio, in fact. Do you know why? It's not about being cowboys, or Dirty Harry. It's about not being the next rape, kidnapping or murder victim. Gun ownership does more to make women equal in our society than the National Organization for Women.

Are you serious?

Compared to other Western countries, we have the most incidents with guns.

Not to mention how Clinton's federal strict checking on guns sold was expired in 2004 and neither the Republican and Democratic parties revived it, yet.

America really needs to put more strict rules with the guns.

Seems if America can't be responsible to handle and regulate gun ownership, it should be illegal to all. Here endeth the lesson, and the rhetoric.

A gun ban would be unconstitutional in the US. So your posturing and opinion, really matters not at all. The only way to put a gun ban in place would be to repeal the second amendment. Thats something neither party is willing to endorse. The real problem, is that gun laws, aren't really enforced the way they ought to be. If they were though, you'd still occasionally have nutjobs that get guns, and go off. But then, you have nutjobs here in Japan that do the same thing with knives. The body count may be lower, but the damage is if anything worse.

KakiOko - Seems if America can't be responsible to handle and regulate gun ownership, it should be illegal to all. Here endeth the lesson, and the rhetoric.

That's good to hear. ;) If your government has already decided that you can't be trusted with firearms or that you're irresponsible, that's their choice to make, not yours. The majority of the voters in the U.S. believe that they have a right, an inalienable right, to defend themselves. They are also un-electing many elected representative who they believe do not believe in that "right".

James Eric Fuller was taken into custody because he was acting like a crazy person and was considered a danger to society. The Sheriff's department could have taken Loughner into custody, for the same reasons, in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. With the Sheriff repeatedly demonstrating his refusal to protect the people under his jurisdiction, the people are forced to defend themselves. You certainly aren't going to defend them or their right to defend themselves.

Yet more proof that leftists are dangerous.

Or rather, proof that people who have had a traumatic experience will react in emotional, often irrational ways.