The Left Politicizes Gun Murders

Yes, it is funny how that works. A nazi is on the far left of the political spectrum, not the right. Not that any of that matters, though, the left has no time or need for reason. Not only that, but Sharpton, Jackson and Wright are ardent anti semites so maybe the correct analysis would be to lump our shooter in with the likes of them, not Rush, or Coulter...The majority of murders are committed by the likes of liberals in the form of young black africn americans and hispanic males. They are on the left. No debate necessary. Maybe they need to upgrade the warning from the homeland security, injecting some common sense and fact into the equation. That is probably asking too much from this administration or the liberal biased lying media..absolutely preposterous trying to somehow tie these murders to the right. Start reporting on what is really going on and how the current theives in dc are stealing america out from under our noses. Pretty soon there wont be anything left to nationalize and will be worse than Cuba. Even Chavez sees his people have more rights than our govt wants us to have.

Gee, nice how you set up the argument to make conservatives out to be poor innocent victims being harrassed by the big evil liberals. Give me a break...there are idiot fanatics of all sorts on both sides of the aisle. I have no idea what would set off an 88-year-old racist on a shooting spree, but most reasonable liberals blame no one but Mr. Von Brunn. Ditto for the guy who shot Dr. Tiller. Your "sky is falling" routine about censoring the conservative talking heads on cable is beyond ridiculous, as well as the 2nd amendment allegedly being under seige. Let's be rational, shall we?

Meh, couldn't stay away for long.

Anywho, Mr. Lewis. The left has not politicized these shootings. These shootings were politicized long before they ever occured by a political process that has abandoned all sense of moderation and civility. It would have mattered if Tiller had been a pro-life pastor killed by an abortionist, it would have still been politicized by one side and then responded to by the other. Decrying the politicization and moaning about why bring politics into these tragic shootings is missing the boat. Supporters of gun control would press for gun control were there shootings or not; just as gun ownership advocates would equally demand fewer restrictions on their fire arms. Both sides have long been blind to any form of self moderation. It's become a winner take all battlefield in which no one wins.

But regarding casting the net of blame. I am a liberal. Liberal ideals have protected my job when socially conservative parents thought a lesbian shouldn't be allowed to teach their students. Liberal ideas promote that my sexuality is neither mental disease nor particularly any one elses business. But when it comes to the subject of hate crimes and hate speach I am adamantly opposed to censorship. My reasons are more survival oriented; a bigot I see is less dangerous that one who wears a nice smile while loathing me behind my back. I also think that PC'ing language allows us to fool ourselves into believing that intolerance is not occuring, when in fact all it does is breed further resentment against the target of said intolerance.

But isn't there a slice of truth to the argument that those who advocate violence are just a little bit responsible for violence committed? If I tell others how evil or wrong or malicious some group of people is and how they deserve to die, and some one who listens to me goes out to kill them, didn't I have something to do with that? We lambast Hilter for being responsible for the murder of millions but he didn't personally go out and shoot jews, homosexuals, and communists all day. In fact, it's hard to find any documentation of Hitler personally executing anyone. So according to your position, Hitler was no more guilty than the average german citizen.

So where's the middle ground? You're standing on it. Shame. We can't hold those who advocate hatred responsible for the actions of others. There isn't enough of a causal relationship to do that with any kind of legitimacy. After all O'Reilly addresses millions and yet millions haven't gone out to kill abortionists. But we can, as members of a free country, castigate those who abuse their freedoms to promote violence upon others. If you think abortion is wrong, so be it. We can have a discussion and, worse case, agree to disagree. But if you then go out and tell others what a terrible person I am for arguing with you, and that someone should do me harm to silence my dissent, then you have transfered some of their crime to yourself. Not enough to ever be punished for it; how fortunate for you. But don't pretend like the condemnation you recieve today for the hatred and intolerance expressed in the past is just some kind of political statement.

It is, in fact, reaping what you have sewn.

Yes, this IS amazing, but not surprising, many people are great at pointing fingers and using highly doctored "proof" for their arguments.

For example, criminals fear wide-spread gun owners who legally carry weapons, and nearly all cases of gun owners protecting themselves go unreported by the media. These legal uses of guns happen all over the US, many times a month. But all the media reports only the illegal use by criminals. The legal gun owners who defend their homes are not sensational enough for the money-hungry media moguls.

Matt. No, we do not believe that true conservatives condone or are in anyway responsible for these killings. But many conservatives have politically aligned themselves with republicans who preach hate and divisiveness. Therefore, you run with skunks you smell like one.
Its not the 2nd Amendment that we have a problem with. Its assault rifles for example. In another situation, its guns being sold to the unstable or to the criminal element. Also, in Dodge City weren't you required to check your gun while in town? Why, even the grizzliest old coot would check his gun before going to Church on Sunday.
Here is my problem. We have so many commentators using hate speech that many think they are doing their God given duty to kill liberals. The Knoxville Unitarian Church killer for example. He had written a "Liberal Killing Manefesto" that the police found in his truck along with books by Coulter, O'Reilly and Goldgerg. He stated in his Manefeto that he couldn't reach the liberals on B. Golberg's list so he would start his liberal killing spree at the local Unitarian Church. Two were killed and many injured during a children's play at the Church.
Perhaps conservatives, neo-conservatives and republicans in general are out of real ideas and therefore are using hate speech to rile their base. If so it is sad.

fanning the flames, Matt?
tsk-tsk!

The Liberal media spend days on Tiller and Van Brunn, but barely a peep from them on terrorist Bledsoe who killed Pvt Long and wounded another soldier. Barely a peep!

Countless Marxists in the Democrat Party have fanned the flames of racial hatred as a sure fire way to get votes, and purposefully divide the country. Professors, teachers, politicians, and media people have repeatedly made equivalencies between any "right wing nutjob" they can find, and ALL conservatives, or Christians, or gun owners. The left was weened on the politics of guilt by association, and are still at it today. These tactics of villification are straight out of the Marxist playbook, most famously advocated by one of Obama's admitted strong influences, Saul Alinsky. The politics of smearing opponents has another champion in Obama's kingmaker, George Soros, who has funded specialists (Think Progress)in this kind of condemnation by association, or execution by equivalency.

How many white people have been murdered by blacks who were "getting it over on the man", or some such inane rationalization, based entirely on what they were taught by hate speech from prominent members in the Democrat Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Reverend Wright, and Farrahkan to name a few.

The gay community has a fairly large number of extremely militant members who will do or say anything to intimidate people into letting them have their way. They engage in extreme hate speech and even death threats when opposed politically. Carrie Prejean is one of many examples.

I have recently read opinions of radical environmentalists advocating executing people who won't accept global warming, a THEORY AS YET UNPROVEN.

Extremism is on all sides, but no one tries to capitalize on it like the left.

BTW, Nazism is not far right. It is left center. And the power behind the Democrat Party, and Obama's rise to puppethood is none other than George Soros, who was a Nazi collaborator in WWII.

Liberals like to wave their arms in the air and cry "hate speech, hate speech" if someone like O'Reilly says something about an abortion doctor. How many liberals know of Planned Parenthood founder, and prominent feminist Margaret Sangers hyper-racist, anti-black views, and plan to use abortion to reduce the black population. Her belief in negative eugenics preceded the nazis, and in fact is where they got they idea. This type of Progressive thinking is far more pernicious than a commentator opposing gay marriage, or abortion, and Progressives are in control of our government right now.

"Might this will be used as an excuse to silence "dangerous" commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?"

Surely that is a rhetorical question.

These liberals are nuts on some of these issues, The virginia tech shooter was a break down in our legal system, he had been to court with mental trouble and for stalking girls, but nothing was ever done in court or anything reported to the ATF or he would not of been able to purchase a gun. This should be corrected so the mentally disturbed person cannot buy guns. Pat

Matt: While I'm not in favor of government censorship or banning of explicit, violent or hate-filled media on radio/TV/blogs--like "somber" above, I prefer to see them coming, and besides, entertainment catered to the lowest common "PC" denominator would be really boring... Everyone's offended by something--I don't have any issue with people using more speech to influence the consumers of speech or other materials they find objectionable. Saying that "kill the pigs" rap lyrics or a talking head's demonization and dehumanization of a person or group that they see as an "other"--a late-term abortion provider, perhaps or "feminazis," or any one of a number of "Worst persons in the world"--isn't a call for censorship; it's a suggestion that those of us who like that rap music or those talking heads, as well as the rappers & talking heads themselves, consider whether their words are ultimately helping or hurting the culture in which we all must live.

I do think that popular music and TV, and politically, the talking heads we regularly see, hear, & read can and does influence people's behavior, in ways large and small. That's why we owe it to ourselves and to our society to choose wisely, and to speak up & out when something in the media offends us. David Letterman will likely be (or at least try to be) more careful about the jokes he makes, and that's a good thing. If enough people believe that going on TV night after night and calling someone a killer is a bad idea, because it makes that person seem less than human, and thus more deserving of punishment & retribution, maybe O'Reilly will think twice in future, as well. (No, he's not criminally liable, but did he help create a climate, ethically...? As with "kill-the-pigs, sell-the-drugs" rappers, I can't say no...)

As for this "he's a product of liberalism"/"he's a right wing extremist" divide, I don't see many equating von Brunn with anyone in the Republican party. "Extremist" is the key word, to be sure, and I think most of us realize that "right wing extremist" has a whole different meaning than "right wing," or even "far right wing."
I think that those who're trying so hard to deny that the guy is a right wing extremist, or worse, to try to make him a leftist, are tilting at some pretty big & well-established windmills. The people who commit acts of vandalism or violence in furtherance of their social & political causes are extremists, and there really never has been any question about where the neo-nazi/white supremist movement has stood, politically. Denial ain't just a big river...

The museum shooter had the smallest caliber rifle available, a .22. Lib's are always crying about assault rifles, and they don't even know what one is.

The British tried to seize our weapons at Lexington, we know how that turned out. If you lib's are willing to fight for it, that is abrogate the 2nd amendment, bring it on, only please do it yourselves, don't just rely on your hired jack-booted thugs in the ATF and FBI to do your killing for you.

Thanks for one of the more cogent articles on this topic. I have HAD it with the RADICAL LEFT EXTREMISTS looking for any crazy persons OWN actions the actions of a GROUP,,,as PRO LIFE groups.....Its disgusting and such a clear ruse.

Sadly we have an attorney general who in my opinion is a mockery to the the position , considering his stands and statements on a number of leftist agendas.....like he would be someone WE could TRUST.....I mean ALL the PEOPLE not just libs.

This nation is so divided and it is DUE to the "GREAT UNITER" who is in reality the "GREAT DIVIDER"......OBAMA

Keep up the good work, hey write a piece on that prigish BARBARA "call me Senator,[BOXER]. I worked hard for that title" to a GENERAL who as MOST ALL AMERICANS KNOW... Military PROTOCAL as a show of respect is SIR and MA'MM. We have a total horsesass in MS BOXER! By the way he and the many thousands and thousands of other military have given this witch the freedoms SHE HAS TO BLOW HER OWN HORN!AND as a woman I could say she had her pantys in a crunch up her butt as well......that day...but all days as far as I am concerned!!!!!TIME to move on OUT TO PASTURE MS BOXER!!!!!!!

People should be allowed to have guns but there needs to be stricter gun control. No one should have an assault weapon and people need to be screened before a gun is sold to them. Any violent offenders, former mental patients or convicts should be allowed to have them. Guns should not be given out like candy at gun shows either. Guns should only be sold by liscensed providers who can prepare background checks.

Conservatives are crazy to think that anyone can have any type of gun at any time. Liberals are crazy if they think outlawing guns will make the streets safer.