Jack Schafer, who each time he puts thoughts to digital screen preserves the American journalistic tradition of thinking independently, has an excellent article in Slate today about this horrific attack in Arizona this weekend. He points out that if we must adjust our conversations so as to not offend the most disturbed amongst us, then we are allowing crazy people to police our speech.
The message boards on Slate are afire with attacks against Shafer, calling him everything to stupid to uncaring to a provocateur.
First things first: this kid was a total whack job. Everything about him- age, speech, recent behavior- fits the profile of someone far into severe psychosis. He was so afflicted that he could barely put together a coherent thought, let alone balance and select a preferred political ideology. It was likely a slow and sad start, as is seen with many teens who begin displaying psychotic behavior late in high school and then realize a full, terrible manifestation of the illness two or three years later. Maybe the fact that he was still using MySpace in 2011 should be an indication that this kid was not operating at full capacity and had not been for some time.
Second, there are a host of existing laws which proscribe speech which actively incites violence. Collectivist calls to "tone it down" is advocating for self-censorship, which is a phenomena normally seen in places like Stasi-era East Germany, not a society which claims to be the most free in the history of the world.
Third, if this leads to an expansion of federal authority to protect Congressmen, detailing of Capital Police to every Congressional district, and otherwise spending more taxpayer money, then once again America is overreacting to a tragedy. Our response to 9/11 was to invade two countries, neither of which were the nations from which the terrorists that day originated. We then passed a series of oppressive, invasive laws which undermined security and moved us away from American values and toward autocratic ideals. We need to learn that there are some problems you simply need to approach cautiously, and there are even a few you cannot legislate against.
Fourth, if we do insist on legislating a solution- do it the correct way. Despite what the Left claims, the Constitution is crystal clear on the right to bear arms. Instead of pussyfooting around the issue with laws the courts have to pretend are Constitutional, anti-gun folks should take the proper (but apparently forgotten) route of changing the Constitution and amend it. If they ratify an amendment getting rid of the Second, the NRA's talking points will become worthless. I personally would not support such an Amendment, but if the thing is ratified and becomes part of the Constitution, then it is sacred and any true conservative should feel the same (heck, I think I just solved the abortion debate with this line of thinking....).
Last, Obama calling for flags to fly at half-mast and ordering a moment of silence is inappropriate. We have national days of mourning for national concerns, the death of an ex-President (which I don't actually agree with- another subject) or to mark a great tragedy, like Pearl Harbor or September 11th. Obama making this sad event an official one implies that the death of a federal judge and the wounding of a Congresswoman is a national crisis, which it is not. OUr Republic is not in danger here. His action suggests that we need to come together and address a concern, in this case- tone down the passions of political speech.
There are important matters to be discussed here. Perhaps it is time to examine our Constitutional prohibition on the federal government regulating firearms. However, we should not skew the argument by limiting those discussions to ones which are "toned down." The right to petition government for a redress of grievances is not a right qualified by the need for certain manners or etiquette.
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.