My thoughts on today's shooting in Arizona
Sunday, January 9, 2011 1:01:39 AM
I decided to post about my thoughts on this, and what it means.
First things first... something that's been making news is, the representative that was shot was on a list of representatives targeted by Sarah Palin. Targeted as in, marked with a target. In addition, one of her opponents ran an... interesting... ad that promoted an opportunity to fire a fully automatic M16, right after promoting getting her out of office. (The representative in question has been scrubbed from the hit list, and Palin has distanced herself from that.)
So, this has obviously sparked a huge debate over whether Sarah Palin was inciting violence, and whether she's responsible for the shooting.
Was she inciting violence? Probably. Was it a dick move? Absolutely. However, was she responsible for the shooting? Unless she pulled the trigger, or hired the shooter to pull the trigger, no. Does the First Amendment protect her speech? If not, it should. Stop blaming her, blame the shooter for the shooting. (No, I'm not a Palin supporter. I think she's batshit insane, and shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power, but that's just my opinion. She still has rights.)
Of course, all of this is assuming that the motives are correct - that the shooting was related to Palin's hit list. It does look likely, though.
I'll note that I disagree with all of the politicians in power, the modern political system that's in place, and the power that the US government has. That said, non-violent methods are far better than violent methods for solving these problems, if at all possible.
There's two ways that I'm going to take this - a discussion of rights, and my predictions of the aftermath. The two are somewhat intertwined, though.
So, let's bring up the Second Amendment. It exists to allow the populace to arm themselves against threats to their life and liberty - natural threats, external threats (other countries invading,) fellow citizens violating their rights, and the government violating our rights. When there is no other option, armament is a very, very powerful option to use to maintain our rights. And, our rights are being trampled on.
However, note the operative words there: "when there is no other option." Non-violent answers are the way to go, if at all possible, because violent answers will always trample on the rights of others, as well... (And, no, two wrongs don't make a right. If you can make positive change without wronging people, then do that instead. This isn't saying that violence is never the answer - sometimes it is - just that it's the very, very last answer. And I don't feel that it's warranted, at least not now.)
Now, for the predictions as to what will happen, from here on out.
Regardless of the actual motive, and (importantly) regardless of Palin's distancing herself from the attack, Palin's camp has been accused of causing it. Many in Palin's camp are the trigger-happy type, too. Also, this will almost certainly be used to promote stricter gun control. Which will especially include taking guns from the trigger-happy in Palin's camp. (After all, the ruling class REALLY doesn't want the craziest class that hates them to have the power to take them out.)
You can just see how well that will go down.
I believe that the inevitable outcome of this attack will be civil war, although with much fuzzier lines than before. There has been unrest brewing, and quite a few calls for it. Now, if civil war starts, this won't be battle-lines-drawn civil war like in the 1860s. We've learned way too much from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to do that. Besides, that only works when there's two sides fighting, and I suspect that groups are going to splinter off left and right. This will involve domestic insurgencies, competing against each other. And, because of how the nation is split politically, the US Armed Forces may actually be fighting against themselves, to an extent.
We're in for an ugly next few years, no matter how this turns out, that's for sure...