|
For years, we've been told by the Right that the Second Amendment was designed to provide citizens with the right to bear arms to defend liberty from tyranny. All of the vitriol in their media broadcasts, the displays of firearms, the symbolism of "war," and "battles" and "targets" of other Americans, the demonizing of "liberals". . .
Now, I've looked at some of the things posted about the accused shooter. . .and his mental state. But I'm a bit confused here - if this man did, in fact, act on the belief that he considered the federal government a "tyranny," and justified that by taking up arms to target a member of Congress in defense of his self-considered "liberty" then what is going to stop him from mounting such a defense in court? And what makes it any different than the regular claims of the Right that citizens should be able to use force when they decide they need to protect their liberties?
Where, exactly is the line drawn between those who actually DO what the Right claims is a constitutional entitlement, and those who just repeat the words all the time? Are members of the Right using this vitriol suddenly NOT mentally disturbed if a group of them decides to murder representatives of what they define as a tyrannical government as long as it is ordered by the Tea Party or Beck, or Limbaugh? But they are mentally disturbed if they make this decision on their own?
Now I'm not questioning whether this young man was mentally disturbed - he apparently did have many difficulties in his social interactions. But I am trying to consider here where, exactly, that line is drawn. . .and what makes his behavior mentally disturbed and yet threatening such behavior from other right-wing groups is considered merely "political opinion." Some of this just doesn't make much sense to me - in other words, why engage in the rhetoric of violence on such a regular basis if no one is ever expected to actually DO the violence?
I hope I'm making some sense here - but this constant deflection by the media (which seems to take about as much responsibility for broadcasting hate rhetoric as the conservatives who regularly have access to it to do so) just has me a bit confused.
|