We’ve heard a lot of rhetoric in the last couple of months after the Newtown tragedy to the effect that the National Rifle Association was responsible for the murder of the children killed in that atrocity and other mass shootings. Whatever one might think of the NRA’s stand in opposition to any change in the gun laws, this sort of over-the-top attempt to delegitimize advocates of a point of view did nothing to help us understand that or similar crimes. But there has been at least one instance in which a national advocacy organization did directly incite and abet a crime involving gun violence.
As the Washington Examiner reports, the person charged with an attack on the Family Research Council in which a security guard was shot last summer did so after he read an entry on the Southern Poverty Law Center website designating the conservative organization as a “hate group” because it opposed gay marriage and helped him find its offices.
Floyd Corkins II plead guilty yesterday to a federal firearms charge and D.C. terrorism and assault charges. His intention had been to slaughter as many employees of the FRC as possible. As an added indication of the political intent of this crime, his plan had been to smear the faces of his victims with Chick-fil-A sandwiches because the head of that company opposes gay marriage.
But it was only because the SPLC had inappropriately labeled the FRC a “hate group” did the shooter launch his unsuccessful attempt to murder people that he thought opposed his views on the issue of gay marriage.
It is true that the SPLC did not participate directly in the crime nor did Corkins act at their behest. But its intemperate rhetoric and lack of respect for opposing views did inspire his violent action in the sense that a reasonable person could infer from their website that the FRC was, in a very real sense, outside the law, much as the Ku Klux Klan, militias or a terrorist group might be. Referring to the FRC in that manner was not only inaccurate; it was a textbook example of how liberal incivility toward conservatives has consequences.
Needless to say, this outrageous conduct on the part of the Law Center did not inspire angry denunciations from the New York Times or the rest of the liberal media. Nor did it cause the president to use this incident to rally the country behind efforts to tighten laws concerning the possession of firearms.
But the shooter’s plea ought to remind those who have been so quick to label Americans who have misgivings about the efficacy or the wisdom of more gun control laws about something important. There is an organization that is guilty of incitement to violence; it is not the NRA, but rather an iconic group that is a favorite of liberal fundraising appeals. This incident has not gained a fraction of the coverage that other crimes have gotten but it should be imprinted on the memories of liberal journalists and activists who have done their best to falsely associate violence with conservatives.
In my opinion, the real "killers" are the drug companies that make the psychotropic prescription drugs that craze the shooters, the FDA that approved the drugs and the Congressional people who turn their ignorant heads away from the obvious problem… it isn't guns. It's the prescription drugs… !
Can you point to any reliable source for support of your contention that psychotropic drugs are the problem you say they do? I'd love to see it. (Are you perchance a Scientologist?)
"lack of respect for opposing views" n nViews like these, cited by Wikipedia? n n'According to the Family Research Council, "homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed" and it is "by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects." The Council also asserts that "there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn".' n nNot to mention FRC's bogus linkage of homosexuality and pedophilia. n nNo, Tobin, the FRC is indeed a hate group, and your defense of it only demonstrates the sorry state of Commentary and the politics it advocates.
No Halal, I mean Hillel of beans, not any more than the Daily Kos, a commode full of Hollywood "stars", Representative Grayson, Nancy Pelosi, Puffngton Post, etc, etc. etc. n nDo I have to spoon feed you quotes from these sites? Nowhere does FRC say anything about taking action against gays. Remember, your idol, His Magnificence, The One, Your Fartner Figure, Himself Baaarack Hussein Obama and his many prononcements about enemies and the queerest of utterances, that Republicans are for dirty air, ignoring the helpless, and are indifferent to human suffering. And of course they are only looking out for the fat cats. nHail to America's first Gay, Muslim, Female President. n nOh yes, and the slander, filth, vituperation, and vilification of Sarah Palin. Usually by girlie men with undescended testicles. And women who measure themselves against her and come up short.
I don't think that any of the bit you've given makes the FRC automatically illegitimate, Hillel. It's leftist dogma, I've come to know, that homosexuality is genetic (I've seen many, in my view, against their own interests, argue that it's completely genetic–I happen to thinks it's a MORE bigoted view to think that all homosexuals are genectic victims, but that's just me)–but I don't see how disagreeing with this makes you automatically a bigot or unscientific, especially if you can have scientific grounds of your own for that opposite belief. As well, since you quoted the Council's supposed assertion ("cited by Wikipedia"–I myself tend to use Wikipedia only for giving a broad narrative of a human historical event, as I don't tend to get in arguments with anything so bad as Holocaust deniers–and often find that you can get an organization's words on their current stance from they themselves) that "there is no convincing evidence that evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn" and then posited that this is one evidence of them being a hate group–well, what naturally follows is that, could you offer evidence that there is this convincing evidence, not a), that you would, but b) that you could easily make the overwhelming case that the FRC is indeed "a hate group." (Being charitable and responsive, you might post that evidence.) n nAs regards the harm "to the persons who engage in [homosexuality]…" I don't think there is any shortage of evidence. There is also nothing wrong with "never affirming" homosexuality, as social conservatives of at least one stripe and those concerned with various social policies such as social security have looked at various things such as the American birth rate and have concluded that we have some interest in maintaining certain things up to a point (usually 2.1 is the magic number as regards the birth rate). As well, one can decide not to "affirm" or subsidize (as Obama, liberals and Democrats with the case of Planned Parenthood and abortion) something while still not being found an opponent of that thing. In this case, the FRC is only seeking to not affirm homosexuality by law (as, technically, traditional marriage is the status quo, and, equally technically, the FRC isn't advocating anything against the livelihood or rights of gays per se). n n"Not to mention FRC's bogus linkage of homosexuality and pedophilia." Opponents tend to obsess over their opponents, and proponents of a cause tend not to investigate those whom they see as fellow proponents too much. (And so, at the least, you say "not to mention," but I'm found I've never head this mentioned.) Still, even if the FRC's argument is found wrong in one after-tittle, that doesn't change the nature of either their broader argument or its general reasonability. n nAs well, Hillel, it is to be pointed out that here the FRC was a very clear victim of hate.
Perhaps the FRC is an obnoxious little cabal. Like so many others. As soon as we descend to the level of street justice AND THEN defend that kind of brownshirt behavior on that basis alone, we're getting to the crispy edge of fascism. no? I have to wonder who's next on the left's list of groups and individuals worthy of such treatment. n nYOU are the people who went nuts over the Sarah Palin map of Congressional seats 'targeted' with little bulls eyes after Gabby Giffords was shot?
So you do or don't think that what Jonathan Tobin has said about the SPLC sharing some responsibility for that individual's violent attack on the FRC offices applies with equal force to Sarah Palin's responsibility for Jared Loughner's shooting of Gabby GIffords and those around her after Palin published her "map of Congressional seats 'targeted' with little bulls eyes"? If you don't think it applies equally in both instances, then why not?
Either it does or does not. The point being that YOU seem to be indicating that in this case it's either sort of ok or tit for tat and seemingly not even a crime.
I'm not indicating anything, and certainly not saying or suggesting "that in this case it's either sort of ok or tit for tat and seeming not even a crime"? (No crime?!) I was simply, and rather straightforwardly asking whether you thought the Palin/Giffords matter and the SPLC/FRC one shared much in common or you thought they were very much unalike. n n"Either it does or does not" is a meaningless response to the question posed you. You won't say whether you think it "applies equally in both instances" and if not, "then why not"?