Palin’s Reckless Use of Gun Imagery Backfires

By TRB

I watched Pres. Obama's speech last night and I'd have to say I agree with him that the level of hostility in politics has to be toned down.It is just plain creepy, all this gun imagery and people showing up at political events with guns on their hips. I am not talking about police officers - I am talking about the guy who lives in that spooky house down the street from you all by himself and never has a word with anyone in the neighborhood. Our spooky guys can't do this in Massachusetts: you just can't carry a Glock into a political meeting here, like you were on your way to a murder or robbery, but first wanted to stop by to see what was happening in politics. Maybe you can get the permits to carry a gun here, if your duties are in the law enforcement or security area. You can get a concealed weapons permit in this state, but it's not easy. Ask anyone who has one. Most of them go to private investigators or former police officers or government agents, but only after a background check; a good background check. Not one of these Arizona overnight things, or the infamous over-the-counter background check I have heard about in some states. Then there's always the gun show - which has the lowest standards of all. Any nut can get gun at a gun show.

But this story isn't about the total control of guns. As easy as it is to acquire a gun in the U.S., I don't believe that this is the real problem. Our 2nd amendment rights should not be lessened because of the ugly crime of a deranged individual. This is a story about responsibility and about security. Starting with the former, I think it is correct to say that major candidates for public office in the Republican, the Tea Party and the Democrat Party have used guns or gun-like imagery (gun sights, for example) and gun language like target, lock and load. Both parties have used weapons imagery for years. We've all heard the term "battleground states" or "targeted districts" Both the republicans and the democrats can take responsibility for that.

But Palin and others have taken it farther. Palin has an ad that has been much viewed this week in regard to the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) AZ and the shooting deaths of six of her constituents and the wounding of many, some seriously on Jan. 8 at a public meet-and-greet event. They were shot by a deranged man who need not be named. Some people have been relating this incident to Palin's gun sight ad, saying that the ad might have put the idea in his head. I believe that is possible.

This is why - Democrats have used similar maps with bullseyes over states they wanted to do well in during an election. But they were just bullseyes over states. Palin's map is extremely different; gun sights, the cross hairs type over states with the Representative's name printed on a list below. Then you go all the way back to March 27 of 2010 to a story in the Christian Science Monitor. In the story the reporter writes about Palin's stepped up usage of gun imagery in her ads and in her speeches. She was asked about the rifle scope on her ads but refused to stop using the imagery, saying it was "just a ginned up controversy."

The other day she said, "We know violence isn't the answer. When we take up our arms we're talking about our vote." This she said as part of an angry eight minute rant about how everyone blames her. It was on her Facebook page yesterday. What the hell is she talking about? It doesn't even make sense. The gun sights ad is still in print. She should edit and reprint it though, taking Arizona off it. After all, it looks like a direct hit was achieved there.

Personal responsibility is always tough for people to accept. But it seems to me that Palin and many Republicans own it for those shootings and the build-up of hateful rhetoric and gun imagery that preceded the massacre in Arizona last week. Yes, one or two democrats probably own a piece of it too, but on the whole I think the Republicans and the Tea Party share much of the blame for dialing up the ugly. Some will say. "You're pointing fingers." You are damn right I am. If someone doesn't point a finger no one will ever own responsibility for anything. The war in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan. The meltdown of the economy. The events of 9/11, when security in America just seemed to shut down across the board. People are not punished for their lapses or lies anymore. In fact, if you suggest that they should be, you are immediately accused of "finger pointing." Would it be finger pointing to say that George Bush and Dick Chaney lied in the build up leading to the war in Iraq?

Security is the other area we have to look at to help prevent further incidents like the one in Arizona. Security is always difficult to control. I have a personal knowledge of this. When I first heard that complete strangers, with no connection to law enforcement were being allowed in some states to wear weapons, guns, rifles, Uzi style semi automatics to political rallies, I almost did not believe it. But I have watched as America's fringe right wing has come out of the woods and taken up residence among the Tea Party types. The militias, which were correctly described several years ago as posing a threat to democracy and were hunted down, are not hiding anymore.

No, they are standing in plain sight armed with a weapon that could blow your head off as they listen to a Rep. or a Senator who they probably do not like one bit. Someone, in fact, they would probably like to kill. And they are wearing weapons. This is what is called taking a right too far. You don't need a weapon at a political rally. Shootings occur at political rallies only when people bring weapons.

The cure for this is obvious. Outlaw guns at political rallies. And just to be sure you keep these nuts and their weapons outside or back up in the woods, set up metal detectors at every political rally and, if they are armed, tell them to take a hike. Really, one of these horrible events, like the one in Arizona, is one too many.