Warren Taylor, the alleged gunman accused of taking three people hostage in a Virginia post office, was angry "about the government taking over the right to bear arms ... he was angry at the government over taxing us," and railed against President Obama, according to hostage Jimmy Oliver, who spoke to the Associated Press.
From where could Taylor have possibly gotten that misinformation?
Informed people know that the Obama administration and the democratically-controlled congress have made absolutely no attempt to curtail the right to bear arms in any way.
This guy is a fascinating example and somewhat representative of many pro-gun folks. These are people who have become so convinced, not to say brainwashed, by all the hysterical right-wing talk that they have lost touch with reality. The facts do not break through their pre-conceived ideas about the government.
Although Taylor popped off a few rounds, thankfully, no one was hurt or killed and the hostages were peacefully released - this time. The three police officers that were murdered by Richard Paplowski, who was led to believe that Obama would be taking away his guns were not that lucky. Nor were the two killed and seven injured by Jim David Adkisson at a Knoxville, TN church shooting because he "wanted to kill...every democrat in the Senate and House, [and] the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book" entitled, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Nor was Dr. George Tiller, shot in the head and killed in church after Bill O'Reilly spent 29 episodes of his show on Fox News describing him as "Tiller the Baby Killer" who will "kill your baby for any reason." Goldberg also happens to be a regular guest on O' Reilly's show.
What do you think? Is the Examiner article pointing out that there must be shared responsibility. People who spout off with thoughtless exaggerations are taken quite seriously by some. Here's a recent example by Joe Huffman. I called it "morally reprehensible" in the comments.
What's your opinion? Is it irresponsible to exaggerate the opposition's position to the degree that Fox News does? Is Joe Huffman's talk about "killing tyrants" irresponsible given the fact that some of his readers are probably as deranged as Warren Taylor? Joe himself denied that he was referring to Obama, but here's one of the comments:
The word "tyrant" needs to be pluralized; otherwise the quote is very relevant for the time we are in. And Mike, if the shoe fits it ain't "our" fault...
emdfl
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Would you blame Twinkies for the death of Harvey Milk?
ReplyDeleteHmmm...
ReplyDeleteShould Laci share responsibility for making the threat of wishing to kill 80 million Americans?
Should you share in that for praising her threat?
If someone acts out based on that threat, should you and Laci go to prison?
When a candidate or new officeholder has made anti-gunowner statements and has an anti-gunowner voting record, the NRA will proclaim him or her to be an anti-gunowner who intends anti-gunowner policies.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing happens with many other issues and advocacy groups, such as the way pro-choice groups react to anti-abortion candidates.
If the new officeholder refrains from anti-gunowner policies in order to concentrate on other priorities, The NRA's predictions will have been incorrect (so far). Is that an absolute indication that he or she has permanently renounced all anti-gunowner positions?
If a few nuts do nutty things, should advocacy groups refain from strong criticism of their perceived opponents? Should actions a of a few nuts cause the stifling of an important facet of the democratic process?
You have to understand the mindset of the average gunloon. They live in a world of paranoia and fear.
ReplyDeleteThis condition tends to feed upon itself, often resulting in incidents such as this.
When you have a a small fringe group who believes their world is being torn apart--it's not surprising to see them act out badly.
--JadeGold
I have spent some of the holidays around relatives who watch Fox News exclusively and yes, they are misinformed and ignorant because of it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I have relatives like that too. But in my case, they were already like that long before Bill O'Rielly and Glenn Beck came around.
ReplyDeleteJadeGold, I agree with you 100%. The problem I seem to run into around here with the commenters is that they get so defensive and take it so personally even when I make it clear I'm talking only about the problem guys.
kaveman had this to say:
ReplyDelete"Should Laci share responsibility for making the threat of wishing to kill 80 million Americans?
Laci didn't make a serious threat to wish to kill anyone. That was just exaggerated talk for emphasis.
Should you share in that for praising her threat?
I explained before that I don't go in for that kind of talk myself but I don't criticize others too much for what they do on their own blogs. I certainly didn't praise anybody for those comments. I did praise Laci for a number of other posts that I did like.
If someone acts out based on that threat, should you and Laci go to prison?"
I never said anyone should go to prison for sharing in this kind or responsibility.
So, what you've done, kaveman, is distort and twist these things to make your own ridiculous points and questions. Why would you do that?
(This is from a June 2008 article in the New York Times)
ReplyDeleteBurt Neuborne, a professor of law at New York University and a former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that while the debate was not new, “the ability to technologically call up snippets of speech” is.
Mr. Neuborne said that a commentator’s language, no matter how colorful, generally cannot be treated as an incitement unless it directly instructs individuals to commit violence.
“In every complex political setting, there’s a tendency to single out the loudest of the other side and claim that what they’re doing is not political speech but is incitement,” he said. “It’s important not to allow that to happen. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously.”
(That last paragraph from the former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union is so important, let's read it again)
“In every complex political setting, there’s a tendency to single out the loudest of the other side and claim that what they’re doing is not political speech but is incitement,” he said. “It’s important not to allow that to happen. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously.”
FishyJay, That is an incredibly appropriate quote. Where do you come up with this stuff?
ReplyDeleteLaci didn't make a serious threat to wish to kill anyone. That was just exaggerated talk for emphasis.
ReplyDeleteThat is 100% bullshit MikeB.
Mikeb: "That is an incredibly appropriate quote. Where do you come up with this stuff?"
ReplyDeleteFor every "incredibly appropriate quote" that I have saved , there are one or two which I haven't saved and would be an "incredibly appropriate" response to something that you or someone else just posted but now I cannot find.
%$#@!