If anyone wants to point fingers, we should include Giffords herself. In a time when people are obliged to suffer groping at airports in the name of national security, we have an elected official forming groups on the street discussing politics. Is this really a current security standard for our elected officials? Wasn't this an accident just waiting to happen? Would the Obamination have been stupid enough to perform the same stunt on regular recurring basis?

Mein Kampf is not a left wing work, it is a work of the right. Hitler is best characterized as being right wing, not left. He identified himself and so did the Nazis as being right wing. They claimed traditional family values and uncompromising opposition to communism. Their "socialism" was a vague prop intended to attract working class Germans of like mind who might otherwise have been weak in opposing the communists and unionists. They never were anything like socialists and pointing this out does nothing to flatter socialism. So this assassin had a fascination for extreme politics in general.

Notice this crackpot also was a gold standard fan. It is more correct to identify him as disoriented, and pointless to make it out as a left wing attack.

What's wrong with the gold standard? It prevented the government from printing money at will.

Blame giffords for what? Having the courage to actually meet with her constituency in public and in person? No way man! We cannot blame her under that pretense. The last thing we want to see is more disconnect between our reps and us. If anything, she sould be cherished for that act. My congresswench won't step into a public venue unless it is fully sterile and attended by only her staunchest supporters.

I respect the moral courage of presenting oneself to the public directly, but not exposing a public official to danger in public, no matter how well intentioned. There is a right and a wrong way to do this and I wonder why there is no discussion about what might or should have been done in the way of security to prevent this incident.

I've read that in the days before Lincoln, one could walk right in to the whitehouse and talk to the president. Now the president only wants to talk to his closest advisors and visiting dignitaries. The people are locked out. I don't know if anything could prevent this short of insulating her from public contact. Maybe some dogs might have been able to sniff out the firearm prior, but then we end up going through an invasive warrantless search just to participate in government. It wasn't hard for this insane bastard to do as much harm as he did, but in all seriousness, an insane person could have done the same from afar, and not at a public event. The Unabomber proved this, and he didn't use a gun. The long and short of it is, it's a dangerous world we live in, and as statistics go, congresspersons are not in a dangerous occupation. I'll bet minimart owners are 1000 times more likely to be shot on the job.
The curious thing here is that Arizona is a "right to carry loaded" gun state, but with all the people in the area of a busy supermarket, either nobody was armed or felt strong enough to gun down the killer before he could gun down all those people. Go figure

Yes, public life was much freer in Lincoln's time than it is now. But at the same time, it made little difference politically that it was. Remember also that public mobility was much more restricted in Lincoln's time as well. Sure you could walk into the White House, but you still had to get there and making the journey with speed would have required at least one horse. And no phones, even mail wasn't what it was now.

The unabomber did not target public officials, and the unabomber was very fussy about targets and all his targets never imagined themselves to be in the public eye. No comparison, really.

It is just absurd to describe being in congress as not a dangerous job. All of our national elected officials have some sort of security protocols and some sort of security details to protect them on the job. This is not the first time somebody in congress has been threatened by some citizen.

I didn't say it wasn't dangerous, but pointed out that statistically speaking, it hasn't proven itself so. Most congress people die of natural causes while in office, a cause of death that most mini market / liquor store owners would pray for. The last congressional death by murderous rampage that comes to mind is that of Leo Ryan in Jonestown in the late 70's

You are dodging the point. Our elected officials have a responsibility to secure themselves when appearing in public and this means especially, limiting public exposure.

Why is there no discussion anywhere about security measures that must have been in place when she did these little routine presentations? These were regular events that she held. Loughner stood in line with questions that he had as a part of a ruse to get close. Not only that, but it was the second time, at least, he had shown up. He had actually had a question the last time he came. Certainly security was screening these people as they lined up.

Anyone will tell you, when you go to some public event featuring a national elected official, there is always some security presence there. They keep a low profile so as not to be intimidating, but they are visible. And that's no accident.

It's very strange. As Brown assumes the governor's seat, there was at least one article in the Bee explaining Brown's downtown residence in extreme detail and with schematics. Why would they do this?

I imagine that these displays and incidents are to create foment within the security establishment by waving targets in front of the public's face knowing that there is an element out there all too willing to take the bait. These incidents provoke a fake debate within the security establishment in order to create measures to protect our enemies (immigrant elements, illegal and otherwise, for example) and provoke hostility and intimidation against innocent citizens by falsly posing them as potential aggressors and assassins.