Let me see if I can make my point here. If I, as a citizen, try to give an envelope with $20,000 in it to a Congressman to vote a certain way, that's an obvious crime.
Yet, these Tea Baggers brandished weapons, held signs with overt gun threats on them, to send what message? I posted a link to a March 20, 2010 rally protesting health care reform in which signs were held up that said "If Brown can't do it (newly elected Senator Scott Brown) a Browning Can" with the depiction of a hand gun. How is this legitimate political discourse?
I don't know if Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle or the Tea Baggers directly influenced this deranged killer. That's not the point. When were guns and violence made a proper debate argument? I must have missed that class.
I go to a lot of Union rallies and we are instructed, in fact I do some of the training, is which we make sure that people's passion is in check. No one can carry an unauthorized sign and participate because it is a reflection on the entire organization, becomes counter productive and defeats the purpose.
Yet these Right Wing Tea Baggers encourage these intimidating signs, use violent rhetoric laced with gun analogies and even put violent, gun references on their political web-sites. Don't I remember some protesters going to the most northern portion of Virginia, carrying arms to demonstrate that this is as close as you can get to Washington D.C. with concealed weapons?
I'm passionate about the issues I support, yet I have never referenced guns or advocated violence in anything I've written or in my speech.
Again, when did gun violence become part of America's accepted lexicon in political persuasion?
Link to gun signs at Tea Baggers' March 20, 2010 Rally against Health Care:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/code-red-gun/Link to Northern Virginia Gun Rally, April 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gun-rally-second-amendmen_n_542872.html#s82466&title=undefined