The New York Times is at it again.
Less than 24 hours after an assassination attempt on members of the United States Congress the editorial board published an article entitled America’s Lethal Politics.
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.
They pointed out how an assassination attempt on Gabby Gifford after Sarah Palin ordered the execution and how the mission failed because of an incompetent right wing killer. Oh, wait, I may have gotten that wrong. Actually, Sarah Palin used the “T” word, yes I mean Target, and that somehow caused Jared Lee Loughner, age 22 to murder 6 people. She was also targeting districts, not people.
Loughner was a nut job, a fruit cake. There is no evidence that his actions were politically motivated and even less that he was a Conservative. CBS News noted in 2011 that a former friend of Loughner’s wrote:
“… he (Loughner) had once been ‘very liberal’ and added, ‘he was leftwing when I knew him in high school and college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows.”
The NYT then goes on to say:
“Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Liberals should, of course, be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”
Well, yes, we did. Joshua Holland wrote a piece called Your Guide to the Sprawling New Anti-Trump Resistance Movement: An explosion of new activism offers a ray of hope in these dark political times.
In his article, he opens with “The election of Donald Trump was a catastrophe for progressive America, but the damage may be mitigated over the long term by a remarkable surge of energy on the left in response to his election.”
Great, you lost. Not everyone accepts your visions of a “progressive America”, except of course George Soros, the Clintons, Obama and other disciples of Saul Alinsky. You know, the community organizer that wrote Rules for Radicals. A book written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. Sorry Josh, try working for it.
Josh goes on to say “The widely held view that Trump is an illegitimate president who’s poised to enact an agenda combining the worst of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s “granny-starving” fiscal conservatism with White House consigliere Steve Bannon’s ethno-nationalism has fueled the formation of dozens of new grassroots resistance groups.”
Great, resist, it’s your Constitutional right and duty.
However, should your resistance turn violent and destructive,
then I have the right to defend and protect.
Now back to the NYT who stated “Was this attack evidence of how readily available guns and ammunition are in the United States? Indisputably.” Well, I for one dispute your evidence. My interpretation of the events is that we still live in the vestiges of a free society.
Guns are available and still a Constitutional right. But with rights comes responsibility. This includes freedom of speech. The gun didn’t magically shoot the congressmen. It took a person with a heart and soul. A person who likely had mental problems, but was driven by the hate spewed from progressives like you to try and kill.
- Progressives like you and the Hollywood elite who make millions from movies and video games depicting violence.
- Progressives like you who desensitize our children to the true horror of war and violence and then blame the gun and conservatives for the mess you created.
I challenge you to do some investigative journalism and tell me, of the last 50 or 100 mass shootings, riots or acts of violence, how many were perpetrated by conservatives and how many by the left.
Sure, there are nuts on both sides of the aisle. What you don’t see is every conservative begging for violence, calling for anarchy. There are hundreds of articles discussing the upcoming civil war. I see no one on the right wishing for this, but I can’t say the same for your side.
You may counter with the growing number of organized militias across the country. Touché, but no cigar. How many acts of violence have been attributed to these groups? These are the people that see the storm clouds forming. Some are vocal, most are not. These groups are comprised of all races, all socioeconomic groups, all sexes and they are everywhere.
You and your irresponsible reporting may prove all of the pundits correct who are talking about the coming civil war. Is that what you want? Quite frankly, if these groups really were terrorist organizations as described by the Southern Poverty Law Center- there would be a whole lot of dead people.
After President Trump commented on the attack, you stated: “Yet he will not help create that nation if he continues to advocate easy access to lethal weapons.”
If all guns magically disappeared along with bombs and tanks, and all the modern weaponry- would that ensure lasting peace and the end of war as we know it? Using your logic, it should. We all know it wouldn’t. We would use clubs or rocks or trucks. Man will always find a way to kill, especially if he is an amoral psychopath desensitized by society and told he can take what he wants.
Guns don’t kill people. Evil people kill people, guns just happen to be one of their many tools.
There are really only two ways to stop this. Stop creating the hate coupled with the sense of entitlement and a lack of morality. Crazy people will always exist, but if you’re the voice in their head, then you are the problem. Should that fail, then there needs to be a good person with a gun
-Chuck Gbur, VP Tactical Medicine, Distributed Security Inc.