As the nation recoils from the horror of the mass shooting in Arizona, I am struck by a strong sense of terrible inevitability. The cauldron of political violence had been allowed to boil for too long. As it did in 1995 with Timothy McVeigh, at some point violent action was destined to follow the violent talk and the brandishing of guns.
It started two summers ago during the red hot public debate over health care, when angry protesters with guns started showing up at presidential events and town hall meetings. A dozen people openly carried guns outside the Phoenix convention center where the president was giving a speech, including one with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back. A New Hampshire man stood outside another presidential appearance on health care reform with a pistol strapped to his thigh. And like a bizarre premonition of yesterday's shooting, in August of 2009 an armed protester actually dropped his handgun at an earlier "Congress on the Corner" event with Rep. Giffords, then as now outside a Safeway.
And then there was Sharron Angle, who in the midterm elections called for for "Second Amendment remedies" to be used "when our government becomes tyrannical." Indeed, openly displayed pistols became commonplace at Tea Party events. Threats of violence were made against supporters of the president, and the windows of Democratic offices were shattered across the nation, including the district offices of Rep. Giffords (apparently by gunshot), all in apparent response to an appeal from a right wing website. A political extremist was intercepted on his way to attack San Francisco's Tides Foundation. During her reelection campaign, Rep. Giffords' Republican opponent exemplified the toxic mix of guns and politics when he held campaign events where he invited his supporters to rally against her by joining him in shooting machine guns.
In the wake of the Tucson bloodshed, there has been much commentary already about the incendiary rhetoric and violent imagery that has invaded our political discourse. Those who have so poisoned our politics deserve our derision. But it is not only an issue of rhetoric and imagery. The fact is that the rhetoric springs from an ideology of political violence -- a set of convictions about the relation between citizens and their government -- that has found a home among radical "gun rights" zealots.
When Sharron Angle spoke of "Second Amendment remedies," they were echoing a core belief of the "gun rights" movement, including the leaders of the National Rifle Association, that guns are legitimate tools of political dissent. The NRA often talks of the Second Amendment as the "First Freedom," because it is the potential of an armed populace to take up arms against their political leaders that deters tyranny. In the aftermath of Tucson, it is chilling to recall the words of an NRA official, who told the New York Times some years ago, that "the Second Amendment... is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government." Or, as NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre, told a cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2009, "Freedom is nothing but dust in the wind till it's guarded by the blue steel and dry powder of a free and armed people... Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules."
Much is yet to be known about the beliefs and motivations of the Tucson killer. But we know for certain what he has done. He targeted a U.S. Congresswoman, who now lies critically wounded, and his attack killed six innocent people, including a federal judge and a nine-year-old child, as well as wounding 13 others. At some level, he felt justified to take up arms against a government official. He sought to "make his own rules" with a semi-automatic pistol. The result was mass slaughter.
In our republic, the rules are made, not through violence, but through the vigorous discussion of issues between the people and their elected representatives. Ironically, that is what was occurring outside that Tucson Safeway when the gunman struck. He was attacking not just Rep. Giffords and her constituents. He was attacking our cherished tradition of peaceful dissent and democratic decision-making. In hindsight, it seems especially appropriate that, during the recent reading of the Constitution on the House Floor, Rep. Giffords read the First Amendment.
The time has come for political leaders of both parties, whether liberal or conservative, to renounce the ideology of political violence. Ideas have consequences. The idea that "the guys with the guns make the rules" has inevitable consequences that can no longer be tolerated.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009).
How many lives could have been saved (or would you rather have waited for the police to finally show up)?
When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
Secondly, there is nothing chilling about the comments the NRA made. The former obviously was a reference to government as a whole, a check and balance against power and tyranny. The latter "those with guns have the power" is an echoing of that statement; why should government and authority have all the guns...?
Rather, I’d like to publicly thank one of the heroes, Joe Zamudio.
If you don’t know who that is, and why I’m thanking that hero:
(You can verify at YouTube, CNN, azcentral.com or the Dateline interview
Joe Zamudio held down the shooting suspect, and secured the gun. (looks to be a young college-aged fellow)
Dateline: (available at msnbc video “Is Congress’ heated rhetoric responsible?â€
at 2:56 to 3:36
I had my hand on my gun, but I didn’t pull it out
“You never drew your gun?â€
No, I didn’t need to.
azcentral:
Four people instrumental in disarming Arizona shooting suspect
“Patricia Maisch, Roger Salzgeber, Bill Badger and Joseph Zamudio.â€
Youtube:
Shooting witness What I saw – Joe Zamudio – CNN video
On behalf of all affected by this:
Thank you Joe for mitigating the potential damage that the shooter could have caused.
I made a similar point in my sermon this morning.
The audio here: http://www.northaven.org/podcast/audio/Media/Serm110109.mp3
The text here: http://wheneftalks2.blogspot.com/2011/01/word-and-our-words.html
The ideology of political violence? True leaders don't divide people, they unite people, regardless of party, gender or color. What else is there that isolates us?
No one in recent memory has come out to tell Palin to tone it down before things get out of hand and now that it has, these so called GOP leaders are defending her. Where is the leadership in that?
To be consistent , one must oppose ALL VIOLENCE.
If words and metaphors don't matter,
Than why believe the constituti on
why believe the bible?
The constitution is only words
The bible is only anecdotal
Because words matter
Just look at Afghanistan.
I think there's something called a 'healthcare industry', a multi-billion-dollar monster that would very much like to dominate any kind of political debate, basically has its' own propaganda wing, that kind of thing, and is probably a ripe candidate for things like trust-busting, because when you get an industry that's able to provide enough political pressure to where they're talking about making health insurance MANDATORY, by law, you're basically now charging an 'oxygen tax', taxing people for walking down the street, more or less, and it's time for various associated parties to take a Big Step Back, and consider what kind of legislative 'fun' they're really preparing to visit on the public, there. People don't go into medicine, so they can work for minimum wage all their lives. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$ Publicly traded companies, trying to manipulate public policy, and hence the public as well, to their economic benefit.
But you;re going to assume whatever you want and make the associations anyway. Never let a good tragedy go unexploited.
ANY infringement on free speech will cause more violence, I promise you that.