Peter Johnson
Jul 25, 2017 · 3 min read

For the commenter who responded to my previous post;

Democrats didn’t imply that Palin comments caused Gifford’s shooter to go on a shooting spree — they merely criticized an ad approved of by Palin which showed cross-hairs above locations where gun regulation advocates were known to be active. And if Obama cried fake tears while “trotting” out the grieving parents of slain children — just to endorse better gun regulations — then all those grieving parents agreed with him. They were there voluntarily and were not being exploited for any political purposes, other than bearing witness to what gun violence can cause. Do you think they have now changed their minds?

The truth is that both Democrats and Republicans were unified in their condemnation of Scalise’s shooter. Paul Ryan said, “An attack against any of us is an attack against all of us “— and all the Congressional Democrats agreed!

I don’t know if Scalise gave his permission to run the add politicizing his shooting or not, but he surely should have been the person to give it the go ahead. And, if that’s true, he ought to be blamed for politicizing the gun regulations issue.

After the Newtown shooting conservative mouth pieces like Rush Limbaugh were quick to concoct a conspiracy theory maintaining that the entire incident had been faked to suit the interests of Democrats, and to any reasonable person such depraved accusations are truly sickening!

Yes all these shooters were able to get their hand on guns legally — either by purchasing them from a dealership or by taking advantage of their parents lack of safety precautions when not making sure they were unavailable — as did the Newton shooter’s mother, and that’s the point! — often shooters are able to remain undetected by dealerships because they live in another state and can legally purchase weapons just by going to another, or could make a purchase because their histories of mental illness were not provided to authorities. The resulting background check improving bill that was sunk after the NRA pressured Democrats, even though it was one of the most mild gun regulation proposals in legislative history! One of its Republican co-sponsors was shocked at its defeat — even though he had been given an A rating from the NRA prior to endorsing the bill?

My own opinion is that both parties sometimes tend to make mountains out of molehills and that freaking out over the cross-hairs ad, was not called for. However Palin does have some extreme opinion about gun rights.

Many of the shooters came from religious and conservative families or described themselves as Independents. So insisting that their violent actions were politically motivated by democrats, takes the cross-hairs complaint to an entirely new level i.e. you say it vilified Palin in an undeserved way, yet you are completely willing to believe that mad-men with guns are usually motivated by Democrats. Tell me then, when John Holmes went on his shooting spree in an Aurora movie theater, did he ask those in the audience to identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans first? Of course not! His murdering spree was completely random and therefore partisan hatred was not even involved in the least way! So how can you expect Democrats to quite pointing accusatory fingers at Republicans, when in the same breath you are completely willing to label insane shooters as politically motivated killers doing the bidding of Democrats? — SAD!

    Peter Johnson

    Written by