A professor of history at the University of Rhode Island tweeted that he wanted the NRA president’s “head on a stick.” After people accused Professor Erik Loomis of wanting to assassinate LePierre, the head of the NRA, he clarified, saying that it was only a metaphor. He tweeted: “Dear right-wing morons, saying you ‘want someone's head on a stick’ is a metaphor. I know metaphor is hard for you to understand.— Erik Loomis.” In another tweet, he added, “Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life.” He called upon the Obama administration to repeal the Second Amendment and labeled the NRA a terrorist organization.
Metaphor or not, it’s still violent speech. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a right to express his opinion, but it’s this kind of “metaphor” that he blamed the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on. Specifically, he blamed the “violent speech” of Sarah Palin and the tea party. In the aftermath of the Giffords shooting, he wrote:
“From a political perspective, the big loser is Sarah Palin. Truthfully, the whole Tea Party movement loses here because a lot of Americans are flinching in the face of the violent rhetoric that propelled them to power. Many Republicans are defending themselves vociferously. Some, such as Rush Limbaugh, claim that Loughner was a liberal and a Democrat, but this just alienates most people at this time. But no one lost more than Palin. Perhaps she was right to be irritated that people connected her with the shooting, but then again, she’s the one who had a target over Giffords’ district. Her aide claiming that it was actually surveyor symbols just insulted our intelligence.”
So Loomis can use symbolic language, and it’s ok even if it is violent. But when Sarah Palin’s PAC publishes a map with “crosshairs” over the representatives who voted for Obamacare, that’s evidence that she and the rest of the tea party caused Jared Lee Loughner to murder Giffords.
And why is it always about Gabrielle Giffords? I know that she was shot and injured and will likely never fully recover, but she is alive. Six people were killed that day, including Judge John Roll who Andrew Napolitano described as a “hard-working, well-respected, conservative” judge. Why would the tea party be in favor of killing a conservative judge?
They wouldn’t. Liberals have to leave out those important data in order to take full, political advantage of the massacre. They don’t care about people. They don’t want to protect children or prevent massacres from happening. They just want control. Calling for the killing of the head of the NRA is just fine as long as you’re a liberal who wants to disarm law-abiding citizens. That after all is the goal.