Bush asked about gun violence: "Stuff happens'

[angus]

It is very sad, and stuff happens.  Nothing inaccurate about that.

But hey, if we only round everyone up who has ever told an inappropriate joke or who has ever been a social misfit or been on lunch detention, and if we put them in asylums at a great expense to taxpayers so that we can be absolutely one hundred percent sure that no one ever kills anyone else again.

I'm glad that there's at least one politician who has some honesty.  Granted, he probably won't win any converts to his candidacy--democracy really is overrated, isn't it?--but on a Kantian level I appreciate his comments.

[angus]

Except he's not being honest.  What he really means is "Stuff happens because we politicians won't take on the NRA, and I certainly won't."

If he were being honest, he'd be a Libertarian.

If he were being honest, he'd say on abortion "Stuff happens, not government's job to prevent that."
But, he's anti abortion.

If he were being honest, he'd had said on Terri Shaivo "Stuff happens, people die. That's life. Or, I guess that's the end of life."
But, he involved himself in Terri Shaivo

IF he were being honest, he'd say on medical marijuana (if not marijuana in general "Stuff happens, if people want to smoke it, who am I to tell them what to do."
But, he's anti marijuana (and medical marijuana legalization"

No, it's only on guns when suddenly he's a libertarian.

I don't know if he is being honest, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.  I might blow myself up in my basement experimenting with explosives, for example, but I don't want any of you to use that as an excuse to make some legislation.  None of it will bring me back, anyway.

The other comparisons are interesting, but they aren't really apt unless you honestly believe that he wants to be a Libertarian.  To be a good Libertarian, you need to believe that we should not maintain a standing army and navy.  To be a Libertarian, you need to believe that public schools should not exist.  I really don't believe Bush is a Libertarian, but I can't get inside his mind.  I know that I'm not a Libertarian.  Are you a Libertarian?  You seem to be, based on your comments.  Libertarians love to point out that everyone is a Libertarian at heart.  I am frequently told by Libertarians that I am a closet Libertarian.  I do believe that marijuana and prostitution should be legal.  I do think that there should be no border fences and that people should be able to come and go as they please.  I do not have a problem with two men getting married.  If you are a Libertarian, then you probably think that all this makes me a Libertarian.  I won't argue with you, but in all honesty I think Libertarians are very misguided, and that none of my positions make me a Libertarian, and I think that Libertarians have little to offer in the way of good governance, and I do not consider myself one.  I respect their innate faith in the good nature of humanity, but I reject their claim that we can return to an agrarian utopia that needs no environmental, educational, commercial, and social regulation.  I would bet that Bush feels the same way.  Since neither of us can read his mind, so let us just agree to disagree.

All Bush said is basically that "Well, that's pretty ed up."  Of course I'm paraphrasing but that's essentially what he said.  There's no inaccuracy in that statement.  It is pretty ed up, but to  up everything even more is of course our paranoid society's instinct.  Just because some assholes decided to take out the World Trade Center, I now have to arrive at the airport two hours early, remove my shoes and belt, constantly pack and unpack my laptop, get probed and prodded, and I charge myself 25 dollars for the privilege, thank you very much.  I do that because a bunch of politicians have to answer to the great unwashed masses every two years and one way to guarantee re-election is to make sure you stir them into a state of paranoia and exploit that paranoia.  Bush at least has the honesty not to stoke those flames, and yes I call it honest when a politician doesn't say, "We have to do SOMETHING."  I'm so sick of hearing that.  Every time I hear the phrase I know I can check off one less liberty.  It's very Orwellian.  

Let us recognize that it is an unfortunate situation.  We could stop selling guns to people--and if that's your point then I'd agree that we probably do have enough guns--but it won't solve the problem.  I find Bush's recognition of this fact refreshing.  I also find it refreshing that he doesn't feel the immediate need to feign outrage.  Of course, it'll cost him politically, but on some level I respect him for this.

[angus]

If I was a politician who supported gun rights, I think I could up with quite a few better descriptions than what is essentially "lol, don't care"

Fortunately for him, then, that is not what he did.

He did, on the other hand, point out that it was sad and that this sort of thing does happen from time to time.  (Granted, he's stating the obvious, but stating the obvious is much less dangerous than some of the other things that politicians like to state, especially in response to tragedies.)

Let us be clear, the relevant quote, according to this article and many other is:

"Look stuff happens, there's always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to do,"

I am glad that a politician finally had the balls to say something like this.  If you have studied American politics--and I know that you have--then you know that it is the immediate response of our elected officials to immediately go into the mode of "fighting yesterday's war," and often with unintended consequences.

I don't know what laws will change history.  I'm guessing that Bush doesn't either.  

You want this gunman to swing from a tree?  That's another debate.  (of course that isn't necessary because he also executed himself)  You want Walmart to stop selling firearms?  That's another debate.  (I've never owned a gun and I also find it creepy that Walmart sells them)  You want Bush to be more exciting?  That's another debate.  (actually, we all probably think Bush is very Boring so there may not be much of a debate)  Here, the OP only wants to discuss Bush's comments posted in the article.   The comment was accurate, and as far as I can tell from the pictures posted and the comments, there was no Laughing Out Loud.  Moreover, the suggestion that he doesn't care about these things seems antithetical to his comments, which were that he thought that it was "sad and craven."  We may spell a few words differently, but our languages aren't so different that I can believe that you can really read "LOL Don't Care" into his comments.