So it seems the real crux of this issue is that the Right is evil to use gun imagery in any way. It’s “violent imagery”

When the NRA uses gun imagery, it is because the NRA cares about the second amendment.

When the military uses gun imagery, it is a symbol of their mission of defending our nation.

When duck hunting groups use gun imagery, it is because they like duck hunting.

But I think that whenever a candidate or a political pundit uses gun imagery, we are treading on extremely dangerous ground. In a political context, what constructive message could that possibly deliver? How can it NOT be seen as belligerent?

So it seems the real crux of this issue is that the Right is evil to use gun imagery in any way. It’s “violent imagery”

It’s violent imagery to encourage vigilantism and anti-government overthrow in conjunction with firearm imagery. YES.

It’s violent imagery to associate guns with overthrow of specific people. Especially when there are crosshairs pointing to their locations. YES.

An image of a gun alone is not “violent.” It’s just an image of a gun. You don’t know if the gun is being used to stop a violent rapist, or take down a rabid badger. Or maybe it’s a hunting rifle; a completely different context. Or maybe it’s only for target shooting.

The WAY the imagery is being used is what is dangerous.

Consider also his behavior during the height of the Park51 controversy. He assumed those Muslims were “trying to be offensive” and then backed away when he couldn’t prove it, citing a fear of victimization. PLEASE.

And Jim is right. Nobody said Glenn Beck was guilty of the assassination. He IS guilty of encouraging an extreme atmosphere.

I mean, the image ALONE is worthy of FAILblog. “We must stand together against all violence” set against the backdrop of Vigilante Beck locked and loaded? gimme a break! How much clearer do you need it to be?

Just because the Right sees toting guns, locking and loading, and using militia symbolism as patriotic doesn’t mean they’re a healthy way to contribute to the political atmosphere.

Which would you rather have: A leftist threatening to spray grafitti on your house or a right winger threatening to shoot you?

I’m so very disappointed that this conversation has turned into a right v. left, white hat v. black hat, our camp v. their camp accusation-fest.

I really don’t want to participate in that any longer. I haven’t much use for any of the camps today as I’m pretty much disgusted in the behavior I see coming from all sides.

And I’m finding it increasingly difficult to not over-react, so I’ll take a breather.

So it seems the real crux of this issue is that the Right is evil to use gun imagery in any way. It’s “violent imagery”

You see, when I got in this discussion I forgot the Left’s definition of “violent imagery”. I thought we were talking about “whatever demonization taking place… in terms of both the scope and the influence”, not about which side uses which imagery.

It’s not the heinous accusations, the hate speech, the constant slurs, no it’s gun imagery. THat’s the only thing which is relevant.

Whatever.

Sometimes in the midst of the incredibly hateful and vile things that the right says in trying to destroy the lives of gay people I ask myself, “Timothy, why don’t you just join the Left. They don’t want to take away your rights.”

But invariably something comes along that reminds me. This is one such reminder.

Well that sums up the argument for the ‘both sides use just as much violent rhetoric’ people

No. Wait a minute. That web site didn’t put Glenn Beck into a no-win conundrum. Glenn Beck did.

Where do they insinuate that Glenn Beck is guilty of Gifford’s assassination attempt in that post. (By the way, how do you “flat out insinuate?”)

That is not “demonization” to criticize someone for actively encouraging the very kind of poisonous political atmosphere that has had so many of us alarmed for the past several years.

It. Just. Isn’t.

Seriously, you cannot tell me that if Kieth Olberman had an image of himself on his web site posing with a gun that people wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder.

And they’d be right to do so.

Unbelievable! They deleted the image. Oh no, that doesn’t look like a guilty conscience at all.

Had they not deleted the image it would have been “insensitive” but because they did, it’s “guilty conscience”.

This is an example of the demonization I was talking about. They’ve flat out insinuated that Glen Beck is guilty of Gifford’s assassination attempt.

Who else was offended?

Why not?

Could it be that your lack of offense is based on who it is?

(p.s. And for all of you who are anti-gun, you may want to consider that Giffords was a 2nd Amendment advocate.)

I think I’ve stated my position and I’ll pull back from this conversation. Perhaps in time we can reach the place again where we judge circumstances on what they are, not on what “side” one is on.

I think when a shooting victim was alarmed enough to complain about specifically violent rhetoric before she was shot, then it is a topic that begs discussion when she is shot.

One might think so… but that doesn’t make it so.

Again it comes back to whether the incident is related. IF THIS incident is related to violent rhetoric (ie if Loughner was influenced in any way by the rhetoric of her opponent or whomever was using the rhetoric) THEN it is a topic that begs discussion.

As I’ve said time and again, if Loughner’s activity is traced in any way to Palin or Fox News or her electoral opponent, then all of the complaints about Palin and Fox News and her electoral opponent are relevant. Otherwise it is an attempt to capitalize on tragedy to advance an unrelated political goal.

Seriously. He looks like he’s on the lookout to kill someone.

“patriotism”?!