The shootings in Tucson, Arizona this past weekend were of course shocking, and I don’t think I have any more to add to what has already been said about this issue except to wonder…
How can someone who drew a map with crosshairs and sights and targets of people to “take out”, then go back and say, “oh no, that’s not really gun sights or bull’s eyes, etc., it’s really a “surveyor’s symbol”? Huh? Can someone with sight go and look at said map and tell me if it looks like a “target” or a “surveyor’s symbol” to you? Because it sounds to me like Palin and Co. are trying to play damage control here.
The thing is, the mental stability, or lack of it, of the man who did the shooting notwithstanding, as our good friend El Rushbo used to say, back in the days when I actually would take the time to listen to him, “words mean things”.
When you talk about “second amendement remedies” and “not backing down, locking and reloading”, to some people that ain’t just “cheap political rhetoric to score political points”. That means something.
How can you spew violent rhetoric and then when someone actually carries it out, then turn right around and say that that wasn’t exactly what you meant? And something else… What if this guy who did the shooting was a Muslim? Would he get the allowance of “mental instability”, or would pundits be all over the TV and radio talking about how “his religion justifies this behavior”? And would Muslims be falling all over themselves and each other to condemn, issue press releases, etc., the actions of this person? Even though what they did had nothing to do with Islam?
Even if this guy was mentally unstable, it doesn’t take away from the fact that some politicians have indeed been uttering some pretty violent rhetoric as of late, and it also doesn’t take away from the fact that Rep. Giffords was “targeted” on a map by one of the said politicians. And the shooter’s alleged mental instability should not be used to explain the words and actions of the politicians that have been agitating for “second amendment remedies” and for people to “lock and reload”, etc. away. Because if it was Muslims spewing this kind of violent rhetoric, they’d be arrested and brought up on terrorism charges faster than they would have the time to “refudiate”, any of their own words/rhetoric, and faster than they’d have the time to come out with a statement explaining away a “target map” as being full of “surveyors’ symbols” as opposed to bull’s eyes and crosshairs.