Is there another way to ask for less violent rhetoric?
Let me say that I think it’s reasonable for many conservatives to feel grieved by the notion that the shootings in Tucson should be laid at the feet of their movement.
As I’ve written before, tea party activists, mainstream conservatives, and Republican leaders have engineered a political revival that is — with passingly few exceptions — peaceful and democratic.
So let me put a question to everyone, including but not limited to the conservatives who take part in this conversation:
Is there a way, without laying blame or pointing fingers, to agree that this kind of rhetoric should stop?
This is a sincere question. So let me appeal to you to lay aside the easy score one-liners and rhetorical zingers and really wrestle with it for a minute.
Is there some way that we can we agree that there’s no place for guns at peaceful political rallies? Can we agree that “by any means necessary” us an unacceptable slogan, in a society that holds free and fair elections?
Can we agree to rebuke and reject politicians who employ symbols, or code-phrases, which imply that violence might be an alternative, if success at the ballot box isn’t achieved?
Can we decide as a society to turn off radio and TV stations where hosts dehumanize their political opponents by calling them “traitors” or “evil” or the “worst person in the world.”
This doesn’t have to be a right-left thing. Civility and manners aren’t the province of one political persuasion. Neither is a capacity for intelligent discourse.
Obviously, none of this rhetorical detente would exclude spirited, even passionate disagreements. We can still have conservative TV stations and liberal TV stations. We can still argue over Thanksgiving dinner.
We can all find people who agree with us that the other side’s ideas are wrong for the country and that there is good cause to contribute money and help organize and rally the vote for change.
We can do that without demonizing the other side or suggesting that the Republic will fall by next Thursday if our side doesn’t prevail.
Is there anything wrong with this dialed-down approach? Does anyone think our society, our democracy, or our airwaves would be impoverished if we demanded better of our pundits and politicians?
On the contrary. If the vast majority of us put the crazy talk back in the box, then we would know something very important about those people — right or left — who still resort to it.
We would know know that they’re crazy and bad for America.
But I think the language issue should be expanded far beyond just the limits of political rhetoric. Many many more people listen to violent music than to Sarah Palin, many more people play grand theft auto or all of those war-kill death x-box games, than know what is on Palins web site. Even more extreme consider the immense popularity of the narco-ballads extolling the benefits of murder and death itself.
This discussion is a good one but I think the issue just goes far beyond politics into our communication in general and its acceptance of violence including domestic violence; as all in good fun.
James, apparently my attempt at illustrating the the tone of your post with my drinking paragraph missed it’s target. “Do you hear yourself? To paraphrase, ‘Guns are okay because I like them but alcohol is bad so it should be banned’. ” Exactly what you were saying sir, you’ve never felt the desire or need for a gun, therefore, no one “needs” one. And yes, Prohibitions failure was precisely my point! When guns are outlawed…, etc.
Hope that’s clearer.
Phan, I don’t know where you live, but if it’s near Potsdam I can take your 30 minutes north and direct you to people who can provide you with actual full auto military machine guns, RPGs/LAWS type gear and probably lots of other truly dangerous toys. They will be very, very, very expensive. They seem to sell well even at those high prices.
My point? You can make all the laws you want, make things as expensive as you want, limit firearms to just the police if you want. Funny thing is that criminals don’t give a rats about what is or isn’t legal. Take away peoples Constitutional right to defend themselves and you simply create a larger pool of potential victims. It’s reported that after Australia’s beefed up gun control laws went into effect violent crime rose drastically. Maybe it was coincidence, maybe it wasn’t. It was also reported that after some states loosened their gun laws violent crime decreased. Again, maybe it’s just coincidence, maybe not.
It seems odd to me that we just had a big debate a few week back about drug use and the story is repeating itself. Some people were of the opinion that drugs were fine, no more laws were needed, it was all a waste of time. Others were of the opposite opinion. This time around the roles are reversed it seems.
Just asking: If you know of people selling RPGs and whatnot, shouldn’t you, like, call the cops?
My ancestors were British loyalists who fled rather than rebel against King George. So I come from a long line of wimps. I have deeply held opinions and beliefs that I don’t share- I believe strongly in everyone’s right to their opinion, but don’t want to broadcast mine, nor do I want to defend them. People who want to engage in discussion should be open to discussion, whether it fits their frame of reference or not. I do a lot of thinking, keep my own counsel, and find that suits my personality. Civility is much stronger now than it has been in our history’s past. We promote cultural diversity, free speech, and neither of those can flourish if we shoehorn them into ideologies or middle-class assuptions.
“Of course, even a great speech won’t usher in a period of civility. Speeches about civility will be taken to heart most by those people whose good character renders them unnecessary. Meanwhile, those who are inclined to intellectual thuggery and partisan one-sidedness will temporarily resolve to do better but then slip back to old habits the next time their pride feels threatened. ” David Brooks in today’s NY Times. On point re the original post, before guns and gun nuttiness became the topic of discussion.
OA- As far as I know, the QPF is well aware of the issue as are the RCMP, OPP and of course our side of the border. Knowing something exists and having the information that allows getting a warrant to find those items are two different things. Criminals aren’t stupid. They don’t leave the toys out in the open. The last time I personally saw the toys they were pointed at me from the top of a large building off rt 37.
So did you call the cops when you were on rt 37? Or were you still an officer then?
Anyway, your original comment intimated a level of knowledge that sounded like it might be useful to people who investigate such things.
Wow, I’ll try again in real clear language- Yes, the various police agencies are aware they are there, who has them, etc. Exactly where they are secreted and getting a search warrant requires people willing to go down on paper as to exactly what they saw and when. That doesn’t happen often and since the most likely places they are supposed to be are practically straddling the border the issue gets even more complex.
People have guns in the US because they want them, people smoke dope in the US because they want to, I am not sure changing laws will make a difference for most criminals and or drug users who would do either. But they are really the same issue; where there is demand there will be a supply. But waiting periods and background checks are a good idea for all military style assault weapons. We should go ahead and just outlaw military weapons but I know that won’t fly right now, but you don’t need an AK or any of these style weapons to defend your home or family or to hunt.
I think we like to feel better because if we can just pass a law it will all be better, but the fact is it really won’t. Mexico has very very strict gun laws and look at what they are dealing with. Not that gun laws are bad, but they won’t have an impact if people want guns. The true laws of the land is really written in the hearts of the people.
Mervel, in 1776 and smoothbore flintlock was a state of the art “military style assault weapon”. If we follow your logic than either we outlaw anything ever used for a military purpose (which is just about everything) or we just outlaw what is state of the art. My small collection includes only one semi-auto “assault weapon”, but it was deigned in the late 1940’s and manufactured in 1962. So were would that fall? And then there are the Constitutional questions since the unregulated militia is made up of the population of the nation, within limits. The courts have held that the 2nd Amend. included, among other things, state of the art military weapons. It’s gets pretty complex trying to satisfy the whole of the issue.
Just to be clear, I don’t feel all warm and fuzzy with some of the Rambo wannabes out there. We call them “Mall Ninjas”. I’m sure you know the type. But in this nation, under our laws and sticking with the ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it’s not my place to try and limit someone elses rights that are clearly endorsed in law. Yeah, I have opinions about it, but I also spend a lot of time evaluating those opinions and questioning myself. Sometimes it comes down to Brians favorite word- nuance. A little change here, a little massaging there and something becomes a whole new animal. Sometimes you just have to stop at a point and draw the line. Other times you can let something morph.
Hey, nobody said this having a republic thing would be easy!
The gun used was legally acquired.
Does anyone think Loughner would have had the knowledge and the wherewithal to attain a similar weapon via illegal channels?
The question as to where he obtained the funds to make the purchase is already in question. As for speculating about whether or not he could have gotten a gun illegally, any answer is pure guesswork. IME, yes, it’s almost a 100% guarantee he could have obtained a gun illegally.
My question still comes back to why he was walking around free in the first place if he had truly made so many death threats to people and had been on so much previous trouble? This guy, based on reports I’ve rad anyway, was a walking time bomb. So either someone or several someones dropped the ball big time or we just have to accept that the current system for dealing with mental patients is way too lenient. There was an article someplace about how HIPPA type laws blocks information sharing, kind of like the disconnect between FBI and CIA prior to 9/11. IMO, based on more than just this case, we need to reevaluate this laissez faire attitude we have about letting nuts walk the streets.
“IMO, based on more than just this case, we need to reevaluate this laissez faire attitude we have about letting nuts walk the streets.”
How do you pay for it?
Good question. Cut arts and cultural programs, cut a whole mess of pork, cut the CPB/NPR/PBS budget completely, get rid of the dept of HHS/Interior/Energy. That should pay for a mess of it at the Federal level. Stop buying State land, start selling state lands, initiate that land use fee for hikers, canoers, rafters, crosscountry skiers I’ve been babbling on about, remove the tax exempt status of colleges, universities, churches, public entities like OBPA and NYPA, bill those who have insurance, I’m sure there’s other ideas beyond that. It’s kind of a catch 22- you leave them out and you get your homeless population and crime and the costs that go with all of that. You take care of them and it costs you in other ways. Is it better to have then warm, dry, fed, and hopefully getting treatment for recovery if possible or on the streets or in the community causing other problems and raping, killing, causing other far less serious problems?
My granddaughter is watching “Beauty and the Beast” and I certainly don’t mean to give the impression that I’m for “pulling a Gaston” and trying to put people “away” without cause. But I’ve seen and dealt with a lot of people who clearly needed a lot more assistance than they were getting and that the law allowed for.
If you have a better option…
No better options. I like the idea of cutting all parks and common services and putting nuts in snake pits. 1830s England, with much higher unemployment, is a good thing to aspire to.