Quick note about the Tuscon shooting and blame

I don’t blame any one pundit or politician. Pointing out a single quote of Sarah Palin’s or Michelle Malkin’s where they talk about glorifying guns and whatnot is like taking a single quote of some white supremacist leader’s and saying that’s why that black guy in Texas got dragged behind a truck.

They’re part of the culture, not the cause. They’re one of the symptoms, not the virus itself. What we’ve got is an entire movement that wraps itself up in weapons and holy scripture, calling for death to anyone who dares fight against them.

…sounds kinda familiar, actually.


13 responses to “Quick note about the Tuscon shooting and blame

  1. Just a minor quibble, MH. Tucson. Not Tuscon.
    Tuk-son, rather than Tus-can. Everybody does it, except those of us who live here. Phoenicians probably do it on purpose.

    You’re analysis, though simple, is very close to correct. See David Niewert’s book “The Eliminationists”.

  2. “calling for death to anyone who dares fight against them”

    Do you have a problem confronting violence with lethal force, or is your mistake that you actually think there’s a conservative movement which advocates (even subliminally) the use of lethal force against its political opposition?

    • Until recently, PatriotShop sold “liberal hunter licenses”, which showed a donkey in crosshairs riddled with bullet holes.

      Right-wing commentator Joyce Kaufman once used the phrase “If ballots don’t work, bullets will” in reference to taking back the government.

      Sarah Palin’s famous tweet about the health care bill was “don’t retreat, RELOAD!”

      Yes, I am 100% suggesting that these people have either explicitly or implicitly condoned violence, generally with guns.

      • So you must have had a real problem when Obama said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” huh? Oh, the humanity!

        The way I see it, you’d look like an idiot condemning Obama for that. But you’d look like a hypocrite if you didn’t. Perhaps the answer is that statements like Palin’s “Don’t retreat, RELOAD!” are no more literal than Obama’s.

        Only I’ve never heard Palin imply that the ballot/electoral process/role of government is to “punish our enemies.” I can’t think of anything Palin could say or do that’s more scary than a President of the United States who uses talk like that to get out the vote. Government is force, and that was blatant incitement.

      • I don’t have a problem with what Obama said, because I even support it in the literal sense. If for some reason Republicans start chasing Democrats down with knives, the Dems damn well better get some guns!

        I did notice you selectively ONLY mentioned Palin’s tweet, though. Care to tackle the “liberal hunting license”? Or tell me, what in the world did the “bullets will” comment mean OTHER than what it said?

        We’ve all heard politicians talk about “not bringing a knife to a gun fight” or “charge in guns a-blazing”, and you know damn well that isn’t something that causes a ripple because it’s a well-known figure of speech. “If ballots don’t work, bullets will” is not. Don’t be obtuse.

      • The liberal hunting license is because conservatives think it’s funny, and all the more so because it pisses off liberals. Admit it: You’re far more offended by it than fearful of it.

        “…bullets will” is both a well-deserved warning to government about tyranny and an assurance, to those who resist tyranny, that their cause will not be put down. Neither of those is a message to anyone to take up arms against anybody else.

        Maybe you should just disqualify yourself because you clearly don’t understand conservatism at all. When you voice an opinion against a sensational mischaracterization, you’re simply doing battle with someone else’s strawman.

        When I read what you say about conservatives I’m not persuaded to become a liberal; I just become more convinced that liberals are ignorant. I’m a conservative, and I don’t feel or believe or want or fear any of the things you associate with conservatism. It’s like you’re in an alternate reality.

        Maybe instead of echoing liberal demagoguery, you should try refuting or dissecting actual conservative content for a change. The logic’s a lot more watertight than anything I’ve heard from Keith Olbermann or Paul Krugman.

      • “Maybe you should just disqualify yourself because you clearly don’t understand conservatism at all.”

        I just love this. When all else fails and you start to get frustrated, call somebody stupid, but be sure and wrap it up in pretty language.

        Yes, you conservatives are so deep, so multi-faceted, so brilliant and so complex that only one of your own kind could possibly ever understand you or your cherished beliefs.

        If we base our opinion of conservatism on your posts here, can we safely assume that conservatives are arrogant, long winded and also ignorant? I don’t see where you’ve taken your own council and refuted or dissected actual liberal ideology here.

      • “I just love this. When all else fails and you start to get frustrated, call somebody stupid, but be sure and wrap it up in pretty language.”

        I wouldn’t know. I’m not frustrated at all. And uninformed, misinformed — even ignorant — those are not what I would call “stupid.”

        I just happen to have the real-life experience of being conservative, and so when I read characterizations of conservatism here that are simply incorrect, I fall back to Hanlon’s Razor, which holds that those mischaracterizations are not the result of malice, but rather (not my word) stupidity.

        I refute and dissect liberalism every day. Real liberalism, the way you believe in it; not some barely recognizable strawman.

        Don’t take it personally.

      • Frito Baggins

        “John Galt was the main character in “Atlas Shrugged”, a man who’s role was so important that you didn’t really truly meet him until about 2/3rds of the way through the book. And then wish you hadn’t. ” Uncyclopedia.

        John, neither Hanlon nor anyone else is rejoicing over your (brief) appearance on this website. Like you, we refute and dissect Randism every day. Real Randism, the mean-as-hell, fuck-you-I’m-getting-mine, Galtic Randism. And when asked, “What did you think of what John Galt said, or did?”, we reply “We do not think of John Galt at all.”

      • “Real Randism, the mean-as-hell, fuck-you-I’m-getting-mine, Galtic Randism.”

        See? A strawman. Thank you for proving me right.

      • Given that you see it that way ……. my pleasure. Being right is very important to you, and I am only so very glad to help out. “Fountainhead” reference passed you by, I spoze?

      • In fairness, Ayn Rand books are the size of cinder blocks. Trying to get through all of them is about as arduous a process as carving a statue with a Q-Tip.

      • Frito Baggins

        Hanlon: in fairness, you are right. Fountainhead was a required Am Lit when I was a fish-out-of-water Yalie in 1967. Not only was it the size of a cinder block, it was less compelling than a cinder block. Didn’t make it through. “Atlas Shrugged” was just a monumental tome to carry around and thereby look intellectual at age 18. The Fountainhead reference was given to me by my professional partner, who is reading this kind of thing for the first time in his life after majoring in chemistry 40 years ago. He’s catching up on the cultural requirements of his generation. He didn’t like Rand much either. I chuckle thinking of “John Galt” googling like all getout. Perhaps he’s not, but once in a while faux-snobbishness is kinda fun.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s