Sarah Palin's crosshairs map: Right-wingers point to maps made by Democrats

[johan helge]

Sarah Palin's crosshairs map is well-known:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html

The second and the third map on this right-wing site are made by Democrats:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647

And they have a point, I think, especially regarding the last map. But the Palin map is worse - crosshairs are more assassination-like than bull's eyes, partly because the three Democrats "down" (i.e. retired) are indicated in blood-red color.

This is usually the way Republicans react to accusations from Democrats - they show that Democrats are not perfect, either. But of course Democrats are not perfect. The point is that Republicans are always (or almost always) much worse.

[Systematic Chaos]

1. Well then Target is obviously asking for people to come in and shoot their stores up, right?

It's the same fucking style of logo.

Big difference between a generic style of target marker, like a bull's-eye, used in advertising (and that includes political advertising), and crosshairs from an automatic-style weapon accompanied by rhetoric involving "Second Amendment remedies" or "shoot(ing) them in the head" in reference to liberals.

Sure, let's go ahead and stop using bull's-eyes in all advertising and political literature. Even though I think that's kinda dumb, I'll accept it.

But what should Target rename itself? :shrug:

[johan helge]

5. Good point

Bull's eyes, not crosshairs, are often used as markers.

[rock]

22. You've covered it comprehensively

There is nothing violent about the Dem map. Those targets merely identify goals.

[patricia92243]

2. I don't see the slogan "Don't retreat, Reload" on the Democratic ones. n/t

[nxylas]

3. That's just splitting hairs

At least that's what the article said about the fact that the map showed targets rather than crosshairs, and states rather than individual congresscritters.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Wasn't This Last Week...

Time to move along. If you still have to try to spin and convince people weeks after the story, give it up. Finally we're starting to see the false eqivelency game...one of the GOTB's biggest weapons...starting to backfire. The fact there are wingnuts still trying to spin this stain away proves it.

[johan helge]

6. So this was

discussed on DU last week? I wasn't aware of that. And I support the Democrats, my feelings towards the Repubs would pass any DU test!

[KharmaTrain]

8. And The Week Before...

...almost from the moment the shots were fired. There were posts here about the Palin crosshairs poster as well as the right wing attempts to spin it away. It was not only DU but many other Progressive and Liberal sites that jumped on it that led to Palin's pathetic "twit" about how it wasn't really crosshairs and then the typical "you're making fun of me". Things move fast around here.

This isn't a personal...not my thing...it's an observation about the tit for tat game that is still going on regarding the Giffords assasination and how the attempts by the right have been lame at best.

[johan helge]

19. You're right,

the reason I posted this (I haven't visited DU in some time), is that I wanted arguments against this right-wing reply, in addition to my argument. And the difference between the maps is bigger than I first thought. Bull's eyes are "a generic style of target marker .... used in advertising", and "Archery targets are inanimate objects that are safe to shoot at. Gun sights are something you put where you want something to be dead."

[Iggo]

7. How does that make it okay?

[Omaha Steve]

9. Reagan had a target map

He was running against Ford for the nomination in 76.

Reagan's target is delegates ran in the local paper.

[gratuitous]

10. This would be a devastating counterargument

If anyone had moseyed down to a Republican meet-and-greet event, popped the congressman in the head and then started shooting randomly at the crowd. Or if people were showing up at Democratic rallies armed and carrying signs about bloodshed. But that doesn't happen, does it?

It's a subtle difference, and it's hard to discern, so it's no wonder these dueling maps (oops!) seem to establish some kind of equivalency.

[southernyankeebelle]

11. They react just like a little child reacts. I mean they take it downto that level.

[Ian David]

12. Archery targets are not the same as gun sights.

Archery targets are inanimate objects that are safe to shoot at.

Gun sights are something you put where you want something to be dead.

[johan helge]

14. Good point (nt)

[melm00se]

18. ummmm

I shoot targets:



and I use a scope and my sight picture looks like this:



and, to one poster above: it is NOT on an 'automatic style weapon' (i am making an assumption as to what you mean here), it is a bolt operated Remington 700.

Can it kill something? sure can, but so can an arrow (I know, I have done both - maybe because I am better with a rifle - I find a rifle a cleaner and faster kill than an arrow)

[Ian David]

20. A target is something you shoot. A gun sight denotes where you are shooting. n/t

[chelsea0011]

13. Targets are not gun sights. A gun sight is specific.

It is used to take aim and shoot. A target could be anything from yes, a shooting target, but also a target for a parachute drop. a target is used for many reasons. and, no, no matter what the loser RW says, they are not the same.

[johan helge]

15. Good point (nt)

[ClassWarrior]

16. Dartboards are the same as rifle sights? Hmmm... Gonna be some mayhem at the dart bar this week.

:rofl:

And you're right, this is part of a longtime Rape-Publican strategy. When you get caught committing a crime, claim that "everyone does it" (even if they don't) to take heat off yourself.

NGU.

[cbdo2007]

17. The map doesn't matter as much as that one of the people on her map happened to get shot in the head

It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. In this case, the person who got hurt was one of two that she targeted that was still a threat from her map. She's partially responsible and she knows it.

[elocs]

21. This is DU and right wingers can never be admitted to having a point, even when they do.

I don't believe they really have a valid point here, but even so it is not allowed to be admitted when they do. That's what allows us to remain pure, noble, and virtuous and them, evil.

[wellstone dem]

23. this post would make more sense

if you agreed with the RW point. As it is, you seem be saying that you don't agree, but others should be posting as if they do agree.