- Thread starter
- #121
Using metaphors such as putting crosshairs on congressmen or it's time to lock and load are intended to rally supporters to take decisive peaceful actions but these are metaphors that clearly have double meanings. Most people will not take this as a call for violence but rather a call for peaceful political action. However,the emotionally unstable, and there are plenty of those that are political junkies, may well draw a different conclusion. I question why is it necessary to use such inflammatory language. There are plenty of other good arguments and slogans available.From what I understand, this guy didn't threaten her. He shot her. There already are laws that cover that.
Yep. Also laws covering explicit threats directed at another person. Shoot, a personally directed threat on USMB toward any member or member's family merits banning does it not?
The question here is whether putting crosshairs or a target over a congressional district or seat or using such metaphors in political rhetoric constitutes a 'threat' or incites violence given that such imagery and language is and has always been commonplace.
We've given numerous examples now of non-violent use of such imagery and language, all of which have been religiously ignored by our friends who insist that ANY use of such graphics or language is directly responsible for violence committed.
I'm not meaning to intentionally rag on you specifically, Flopper, because you have been debating competently and respectfully and I appreciate that very much. Kudos despite the flaws in your argument that I think I see.
The point I am making and that you so far have not addressed is that there is no evidence of ANY kind that use of any graphics or the political commentary found in conservative or liberal media has ever incited or encouraged anybody, mentally unbalanced or otherwise, to violence.
Invariably such violence, if it can be traced to anything other than mental imbalance, seems to be triggered by specific government action (McVeigh protesting Koresh's Mt. Carmel and Ruby Ridge) or some seemingly innocuous trigger--Reagan's attempted assassin wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Shall we outlaw movies because some nut was infatuated with a movie star to that extent?
Squeaky Fromme targeted President Ford because she wanted a new trial for Charles Manson. The Unabomber defended his bombings as extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom necessitated by modern technologies. We to this day do not know why Oswald shot Kennedy, but there was no talk radio and very little political commentary on television at that time. As he apparentlly isn't cooperating, we don't know why the Arizona shooter committed that tragic act, but he was not affiliated with a political party, he didn't watch any news on television, didn't listen to any talk radio, and embraced delusions that had nothing to do with any of that.
Looking back over history Booth shot Lincoln over grief of the Confederacy losing the Civil War.
Guiteau after killing President Garfield wrote: "Washington June 16, 1881. To the American People: I conceived the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. Not a soul knew of my purpose. I conceived the idea myself and kept it to myself. I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the Administration, and gradually the convictions settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men that made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic."
Schrank said he was instructed by a ghost in a dream to kill Teddy Roosevelt. Seven years later, Roosevelt went to his grave with the bulllet Schrank put in him.
It is believed that an attempted assassination of FDR was an organized crime project and was not specifically targeted at the President.
An assassination attempt targeting Harry Truman was committed by Puerto Rican activists.
Nixon's would be assassin was prompted by a thwarted plane hijack attempt.
Where do we find a specific pattern in all of this? There isn't one. Where can you point to any violent act committed by somebody who took his cues from radio, television, or Tea Party events? You can't.
So again. You obviously hold radio and news commentators in high disregard and refer to what they do in strong negative language. Are you responsible for hateful people or nuts launching death threats at them? Should YOUR speech be restricted lest somebody wig out and actually carry out those threats?
Or do we take the realistic and reasonable view that such bad acts are committed by bad or mentally ill people and only the most extreme believe that restricting the freedoms of the rest of the world will have any good effect to prevent such bad acts?
Last edited: