Well, I have a question about this shooting incident. . .

[kevinbgoode]

For years, we've been told by the Right that the Second Amendment was designed to provide citizens with the right to bear arms to defend liberty from tyranny. All of the vitriol in their media broadcasts, the displays of firearms, the symbolism of "war," and "battles" and "targets" of other Americans, the demonizing of "liberals". . .

Now, I've looked at some of the things posted about the accused shooter. . .and his mental state. But I'm a bit confused here - if this man did, in fact, act on the belief that he considered the federal government a "tyranny," and justified that by taking up arms to target a member of Congress in defense of his self-considered "liberty" then what is going to stop him from mounting such a defense in court? And what makes it any different than the regular claims of the Right that citizens should be able to use force when they decide they need to protect their liberties?

Where, exactly is the line drawn between those who actually DO what the Right claims is a constitutional entitlement, and those who just repeat the words all the time? Are members of the Right using this vitriol suddenly NOT mentally disturbed if a group of them decides to murder representatives of what they define as a tyrannical government as long as it is ordered by the Tea Party or Beck, or Limbaugh? But they are mentally disturbed if they make this decision on their own?

Now I'm not questioning whether this young man was mentally disturbed - he apparently did have many difficulties in his social interactions. But I am trying to consider here where, exactly, that line is drawn. . .and what makes his behavior mentally disturbed and yet threatening such behavior from other right-wing groups is considered merely "political opinion." Some of this just doesn't make much sense to me - in other words, why engage in the rhetoric of violence on such a regular basis if no one is ever expected to actually DO the violence?

I hope I'm making some sense here - but this constant deflection by the media (which seems to take about as much responsibility for broadcasting hate rhetoric as the conservatives who regularly have access to it to do so) just has me a bit confused.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. you only have a right to rebel if your rebellion succeeds.

If it fails you have a right to an attorney.

[DCKit]

4. And the victor writes the history. nt

[montanto]

5. lol. but, yeah, thats it right there.

[riverwalker]

2. deadly force against an perceived unreal threat

Seems Bush took us to war for the same reasons. Are all Republicans schizophrenic or just most of them?

[rfranklin]

3. He was watering the Tree of Liberty...

Isn't that how the Tea Party describes it?

[Javaman]

6. Paper tigers are funny like that...

the repukes love to scream and yell about shooting this or that person, but like everything else in their lazy ass lives, they want someone else to do it.

And when someone else does it, they are the first to label the shooter as someone from the other side.

Like everything in their miserable lives, they never take responsibility for anything. They never understand the concept of a "learning moment".

That hate talk does have consequences.

[DirkGently]

7. You've hit on exactly what the right doesn't want to talk about. He DID what they talk about doing

... constantly. It's bizarre to imagine the rightwing / Tea Party / We'll Get Our Way with Guns people will disclaim this bloodshed, like the other righwing-inspired bloodshed we've seen, with a shrug. But they will. And next week they'll be back on the air and back in the streets, cheerily waving their firearms and warning America not to make them too upset, or just maaaaybe someone miiight get shot.

There is no difference between what this assassin did and what even mainstream rightwingers espouse, except that the perpetrator actually did what they constantly hint at and threaten to do.

Really, what else would Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies" look like? This is what she called for. If too few Republicans got elected at the mid-term, look out, because angry conservatives might start shooting.

Now "someone" has started shooting, and they're scrambling to disassociate themselves.

Will we let them?

[slackmaster]

8. No, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the security of a free state just as it says

You've been given bad information.

[alarimer]

9. I want the second amendment repealed.

I want people like this guy not to be able to buy guns and I want the sellers charged as accessories. In fact, I wan gun dealers (whose guns are being used in Mexico to kill people even as we speak) to be charged when they sell someone something that is then used to hurt someone else.

Getting rid of the second amendment will allow us to enact sensible gun restrictions.

[Recursion]

10. Roughly a third of the colonists supported the American Revolution when it started

That's about the proportion that support the tea party today.

Just sayin'

[Motown_Johnny]

11. You make perfect sense. This seems to be a theory v. practice disconnect

In theory they all agree that we need guns to fight off the tyrants

In practice they all agree that killing a member of Congress is unacceptable (well they all agree when public opinion is against them, I give it a week)