I thought this was interesting - in light of the recent assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, there has been an increased amount of attention on gun control legislation - both existing and proposed. While on Big Government, I noticed they featured this headline at the top of their page: "US Lawmaker Urges Ban On Large Gun Clips."
I thought they were referencing a news story I had read on The Huffington Post regarding Republican Rep. Peter King, who is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official - a ban similar to one already on the books banning firearms 1,000 feet from a school. I was curious because the Big Government headline featured no indication whether the lawmaker was a Democrat or a Republican, and usually when a conservative media site lacks an identifier, it is because the subject is a Republican.
When I clicked on the headline, I was brought to a Breitbart.com story regarding a proposal by Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg, which would ban high-capacity ammunition clips similar to the one the would be assassin used in Arizona.
"The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market," Laughtenberg said in a statement.
Jared Loughtner fired 31 shots from his semi-automatic pistol.
As can be expected, the comments were filled with complaints against the "libtards" who wish to curtail second amendment rights.
I thought this story was interesting because searching Andrew Breitbart's websites, I found zero mention of Peter King's proposal, which is strange because it is a law that attacks one of the right-wing's favorite talking points: the second amendment.
I think King's planned legislation will make some very interesting inter-party conflicts. The right-wing base will oppose any and all gun legislation and they will surely apply pressure on Republican (and Blue Dog) lawmakers who look like they may support such a bill. Imagine how those people who stood outside of town hall meetings clinging to their guns would feel when their representative is considering banning such actions in the future?
While I am sure most Democrats would support such a measure, and with good reason considering the vitriolic rhetoric coming from the far right, I think the friction this would cause in the Republican party would be of most interest. Democrats could also use this issue to point out conservative hypocrisies - come election time, they can point out that their opponent supported gun limitations, and that would surely help promote tea party challenges that may siphon off votes...
You have to understand that Breitbart is not interested in the truth. There is an article on his site by some doctor who states the murderer was stalking Congresswoman Gifford since 2007. This is absolutely incorrect. What they found was a letter from her to him. Apparently he went to one of her open meetings. Although he may have been to another one, this is what his friend who went with him had to say:ReplyDelete
Tierney, who's also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period. He's unsure whether it was the same one mentioned in the charges -- Loughner "might have gone to some other rallies," he says -- but Tierney notes it was a significant moment for Loughner: "He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?' "
Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."
The allegation that he was stalking her in 2007 fits the wingnut denial agenda because if he was stalking her in 2007, Sarah Palin's map obviously did not influence him. I am not stating that it did, but they need to tell the truth.
This guy was crazy and appeared to have some sort of grudge against the congresswoman, BUT I thought it was interesting how quick the right was to come and defend Palin, and how fast Palin tried to walk back her map by claiming cross hairs are some sort of surveyor's mark, ignoring her corresponding "reload" message. It is like Palin trying to re-explain her use of the word "refudiate," claiming it was a keystroke error despite the facts that she used it on numerous occasions before, and used different excuses as well...ReplyDelete
I have a feeling that while this person was upset Giffords, the recent rhetoric helped contribute to his derangement - he was once upset but as the tea party (and far right) found issue with Giffords and the Democrats, with their rhetoric sounding similarly like his own (although more coherent), Loughner probably felt more confident in his actions. I think the political climate gave Loughner some sort of justification for his plan...