top of page

Gifford's Shooter a Tea partier?Who cares?

In Giffords shooter shows pattern of psychiatric derangement; no clear political affiliation, Mike Adams writes: 

--The utterly false and irresponsible accusation floating around certain circles on the 'net that Loughner was some sort of extreme right winger who targeted a Democrat is extremely irresponsible and hateful. Giffords was pro Second Amendment and publicly supported the right of the People to keep and bear arms. She's actually a gun owner who urged the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Second Amendment rights. She was also a huge supporter of a stronger border with Mexico, which has traditionally been one of the key positions of Arizona conservatives. Giffords can't be pigeonholed into a label, you see. Her views are far more complex than "Democrat" vs "Republican." She is certainly no "left-wing liberal," and the attack on her doesn't appear to be politically motivated at all.


--What is VERY clear at this point is that Loughner was not of the presence of mind to be rationally affiliated with ANY political party: Not on the left, nor the right. His apparent psychosis takes him way out of the realm of rational participation in any particular philosophy.

Though I appreciate what Mike is saying in his article above, I think there is another point that needs to be made. 

This deceptive practice of holding up ONE deranged man’s actions as something that “represents” millions of other people (people who would NEVER encourage or participate in the heinous act) needs to end. It’s a lie. 

I think it's ridiculous that the "no political affiliation" statement even needs to be made. The only way it would be relevant is if the "political affiliation" in question applied to a homogeneous group that openly advocated murder. (And even THEN you’d have to be careful about who the liars were trying to “lump in” with that group.) 

Of course, when they’re not trying to demonize an anti-establishment political party, they can’t pass up an opportunity to demonize ALL gun owners. Well, it’s the exact same lie all over again and it’s equally invalid. 

In other words: 99.999% of legally armed American citizens are NEVER (never) going to do something like this. Therefore, disarming them will reduce the chances of them doing something like this by exactly ZERO. 

On the other side of the equation, there is a percentage of the population (probably less than 1 /100th of 1 percent) who WILL gladly commit mass murder. Some of them will do it under the label of “Democrat” or “Republican” or “Anarchist…” Some might call themselves “Libertarians” or “Socialists” or even “Tea Partiers.” Regardless of the “flag they fly,” they will all have one thing in common: they’re deranged murderers who DON’T represent the vast majority of people in the “group” they’ve named as their own. 

Oh, and I suppose they would have one more thing in common: Since they’re willing to murder people, a law against them “having a gun” wouldn’t deter them a bit.

Joe Plummer 1.9.11
Back to Home Page
Back to Letters and Commentary Page

Joe Plummer is the author of Dishonest Money: Financing the Road to Ruin.

bottom of page