Where to Begin?

[Pamela Troy]

Sheriff Clarence Dupnick, on the shooting in Tuscon:

There are a whole lot of people in this country who are very angry at the politics of people like Gabrielle.

A writer should not find herself saying “words fail me,” but I’m just about at that point. It’s not just the horror of what happened in Tuscon on Saturday. It’s the flood of rationalizations coming from right wingers and moderates as they struggle to explain why this nightmare is completely unconnected -- honest! – to the rising tide of violent political rhetoric that the right has been exploiting and that moderates have been carefully ignoring.

No, this is not business as usual. Spare us the kindly hand-pats and the patronizing assurances that this is all part of being a public official, that this level political violence is normal. Threats against government officials have, in fact, increased dramatically. Gabrielle Giffords herself pointed this out last spring while decrying the inflammatory political rhetoric she was hearing. “In the years that my colleagues have served, twenty, thirty years, they’ve never seen it like this,” she observed when Chuck Todd predictably trotted out this tired old chestnut.

No, this is not a matter of increased violent rhetoric across the political spectrum. It’s not “both sides” that need to tone it down. It is not a Democratic candidate who embraced the slogan “Lock and Load.” It was not a liberal Democrat who announced that if ballots didn’t work, bullets would, or who invoked “Second Amendment remedies.” As much venom as I heard aimed at George W. Bush during his presidency, I don’t recall anti-Bush demonstrators showing up at public gatherings with loaded guns, and I don’t believe for one moment that they would have been tolerated if they had. Neither Keith Olbermann nor Rachel Maddow have uttered anything comparable to Glenn Beck’s claim that people in the current administration are plotting to kill 10% of the American population.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnick recently summed it up on Fox while refusing to back down from his comments about vitriol. When Megyn Kelly asked him, “Was there something about Congresswoman Giffords that set him off,” he responded bluntly that it was people with Giffords’ politics who were being targeted with venomous, borderline violent rhetoric.

No, complaining about over the top, violent rhetoric and saying it could have consequences is not the same as engaging in that over the top rhetoric. I’m not even going to bother to expand on this here because the argument is so stupid it feels degrading to even talk about it.

Likewise the argument now spreading across the right-wing blogosphere, that Loughner was a leftist because he listed Mein Kampf as his favorite book.

And no, the fact that Loughner is plainly a “madman” does not lessen the responsibility of figures like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Sharron Angle, and Joyce Kaufman, all of whom have helped to create a vitriolic political environment where violence is presented, both directly and indirectly, as a viable solution. Jared Lee Loughner is part of the unbalanced portion of society that renders that kind of rhetoric irresponsible as all Hell.

And yes, this incident should spark a meaningful debate on gun control, given that a “madman” with a police record was able to legally purchase a previously banned automatic weapon that could fire off roughly 30 rounds.

Hence the high body count that includes a 9-year-old girl.

YES, YES, YES It SHOULD spark meaningful debate about the availability of guns in our society.

Just don’t count on it.

[damntexdem]

1. Excellent post!

I'm sure that you'll be thoroughly flamed for it. Take that as just part of the applause.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. He did not have an automatic weapon. n/t

[Matt Shapiro]

14. Semi-automatic; 33 rounds in the clip; enough for mass murder!

[rustydog]

3. I would point out that ANYONE who attended a bush event to protest

were placed several blocks away in "free speech zones". We advocated protests, not gun sights, 2nd amendment remedies or lock and load.

a big difference. The radical right's vehement denial of culpability since the shooting glaringly shows even they see the connection and are trying to create distance without having to apologize for giving a wink and a nod to shooters.

[defendandprotect]

15. Exactly .... and many of the Bush events were "by invitation" ... !!

[beevul]

4. Way to get it wrong.

"And yes, this incident should spark a meaningful debate on gun control, given that a “madman” with a police record was able to legally purchase a previously banned automatic weapon that could fire off roughly 30 rounds."

It wasn't an automatic weapon, and it wasn't previously banned.

[bluescribbler]

12. you're half right

of course, that means you're half wrong. The pistol was, indeed, a semi- automatic weapon, and had never been banned. The ammo clip, however, which held 31 rounds, had until recently been banned. In addition, I've seen reports that he had a second clip, which he was trying to load into the weapon when he was taken down by brave bystanders. What difference does it make? If he'd had to stop and reload sooner, say after firing 8 rounds, he might have been taken down sooner, and a 9 year old girl might still be alive, albeit traumatized by the horror she witnessed. This is, of course, only speculation on my part.

[defendandprotect]

16. ... and you're missing the point -- this isn't a thread to push NRA views ....

[coalition_unwilling]

5. One of the best posts I have seen on DU about the 'meaning' of

the Tucson shooting and the milieu in which it occurred.

Kudos to this author. To those who are banging at her about whether the weapon was banned or truly automatic, please pay attention to the substance of what she is writing and stop caviling at the details. My god, does it matter whether the handgun in question was áutomatic or semi-automatic?

[hootinholler]

6. When was the Glock 19 banned?

:shrug:

I seriously doubt it ever was, but I'm not up on banned weaponry.

-Hoot

[defendandprotect]

7. Like US lacking national health care -- lacking gun control laws is also insane ...!!!

Where is the leadership to address both of these issues --

this is disgusting!!

Obama had no word on "guns" when he spoke? PLEASE ... tell me he called

for gun control?

[TBF]

8. There is no way in hell that Mr. Obama will call for gun control when he is

courting moderates for 2012.

[defendandprotect]

9. The nation wants gun control ... that would include "moderates" ....

since we now have one right wing party and one radical right wing party ....

imo, Obama is court corporatistds -- that's the right wing -- and probably

other right wingers ... i.e., perhaps GOP/NRA'ers ????

After all, being good to business could include increasing gun sales?

[russspeakeasy]

10. Pamela Troy...thank you for the post.

[davidthegnome]

11. It's not just the right wing that is angry

The figures you pointed out - Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. are creating a great deal of that anger on the left. The things they say should make people sick - yet they have a great many listeners and devoted fans in America. What Loughner did is beyond despicable and cannot be excused regardless of the reasoning or his mental status. However, that's just one angry young man. How many angry young men do we have in this Country with guns? Loughner, beyond being an insane murderer, can also serve as an example of what can happen when politics get out of control. If this current situation continues, there could be dozens, even hundreds more like him. Inspired by these fools and the vitriol they spew, is it any wonder that we have many angry, unbalanced people with fire arms?

His (Loughner's) political stance really doesn't matter - though if he liked Mein Kampf, I would have to point out that Hitler was very right wing, to imply otherwise indicates how uneducated and downright stupid some people are. The left, however, is just as capable of those sorts of actions as the right. The difference is that, generally speaking, liberals don't tend to carry loaded guns around (with some exceptions). A man like Loughner could possibly spark off an angry, violent reaction from someone on the left who is unbalanced and furious. Even I have to say I would have had a hard time not hating someone who's favorite book was Mein Kampf.

There may be some debate regarding gun control in the near future, but people will also use Loughner as an example for why citizens should be able to carry openly or concealed wherever they go. There will be an argument (not an invalid one either) that had someone present had a loaded weapon much of this horror could have been prevented. I'm sure there will be debate, perhaps not as public as many of us would like - and most likely to prove fruitless though.

Is the right more guilty than the left of spewing angry, violent rhetoric? Yes, by far. Nonetheless, we need to keep in mind that we are all human - and that the greatest enemies in these times are unreasoning anger and hatred. We can all benefit I think, from taking a deep breath and counting to ten when we feel overwhelmingly angry regarding a political situation or politician. Passion is (usually) good, but it must always be tempered with reason.

How can we prevent what happened in this situation from happening again? We can't. What we can do is make efforts on our own to stay calm and reasonable and to encourage others (right or left) to do the same.

[briteleaf]

13. Great article but facts hidden from American people

Well written article. However, it won't illuminate Americans other than the internet news elite. This kind of expose' will never appear in the major media because the major news networks are all controlled by corporate interests. In dictatorships, the media is controlled by the folks in power. The same is true in America, the media is controlled by the ultra-wealthy and corporate interests. They present Americans with the pablum/spin of their choice. The major media isn't exposing that America's 5 largest banks have grown in double digits since the wall street crash. The media doesn't inform us that these banking monopolies have to be broken up before they create more economic disasters. The media don't inform Americans that it's professional politicians in congress are being influenced and controlled by campaign funds promised by lobbyists for the ultra-wealthy and corporate interests. It seems of little consequence, in the long run, if some groups have caused bloody outbursts when most Americans are never presented with the facts.

[defendandprotect]

17. In undoing the myths....let's also admit that politicians are doing the OPPOSITE of

what the public and the voters want -- no matter the issue.

That also applies to this corporate control of our free press -- and this

highly aggressive style of debate which began decades ago with "Crossfire" and

Pat Buchanan, pushed and financed by GE.

I'd also cite the confusion put in place by Jon Stewart in calling out BOTH sides

re the charged political climate. Many responded to it, but seemingly not strongly

enough? The right wing stands alone in their violent expressions -- all fully traceable --

and their aggressions and near-violence in the political arena. Where have Democrats come

armed to any Town Hall or political meeting?

The other thing we have to constantly be reminding the public about is that the

T-BAGGERS are bought and paid for by the Koch Bros/oil industry. It's not a grass

roots organization, it is wholly funded by wealthy right wingers -- and run out of

a PR firm which guarantees them full coverage on news.

Koch Bros. family are the original founders of the John Birch Society -- which waged

attacks on JFK and the Democratic Party -- and, btw, the 1960 DP Platform which JFK

ran on called for "NATIONALIZING THE OIL INDUSTRY" -- JFK was ending the oil depletion

allowance, as well. Imagine how much saner and peaceful world we'd have now had those

plans been carried thru.

Also, the public needs to get firmly in their mind that this is organized right wing

violence -- these are simply the "dogs being set loose" -- the dogs of the elite right wing.

And, indeed, it's no different from the GOP/NRA violence we've seen as NRA backers came

to the White House to try to shoot Pres. Clinton -- or the obsessions of the pro-gun

posters we regularly see on DU.

The T-BAGGERS were created to accelerate this political violence and to move it into more

local political arenas --

Not any different either from the GOP/"Pro-life" murderers who have been killing doctors

for decades now!

Same right wing rhetoric -- whether from O'Reilly referring to Dr. Tiller as "Dr. Killer"

and calling for his elimination -- or from Palin setting crosshairs on a political map and

then denying it --

Anyone here really expect the right wing to stand up and be accountable?

They're cowards -- and bullies --

And there is only one way they can come to power and that's via political violence ---

Don't let it happen!!



Thank you for the post -- a subject we have to keep straight! :)


And please -- Turn off the TV's -- deny them an audience!!