Will AZ Shooter Kill the First Amendment?

by Joe Guzzardi

Immediately after crazed gunman Jared Lee Loughner gravely wounded Arizona U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, killed U.S. Judge John M. Roll, and six other people while wounding 12 innocent bystanders, the immigration rhetoric subtly ratcheted up.

Denouncing Gifford’s shooting, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others made it clear that what they referred to as “inflammatory speech” had made the political atmosphere in Arizona so toxic that acts of violence were inevitable.

Referring to talk radio hosts, Dupnik charged them with “inflaming the American public by those who get paid to do that. It might be free speech but it does not come without consequences.”

Ironically, Dupnik is the most skilled flamethrower of all.

Last year, at the height of the S.B. 1070 controversy, Dupnik called it “racist” and “disgusting” while claiming that Arizona is “the mecca of prejudice and bigotry.” Furthermore, Dupnik went on record that he would not enforce the measure if it became law, a blatant violation of his oath of office.

Dupnik never directly claimed that S.B. 1070 and Giffords’ support of it were linked to the shootings. But a close read between the lines strongly suggests that Dupnik blames Loughner’s multiple murders on “the haters,” a label that many automatically apply to Americans who favor enforcing federal immigration law.

Even though only a few hours had passed after the massacre before Dupnik pointed his finger and no evidence has yet surfaced that Loughner is anything other than deranged, more “hate” charges flew.

Jan-Ruth Mills, a Pima Community College Holocaust history teacher, echoed Dupnik’s charges of looming “consequences,” presumably violence, when any one of with a political mindset different than hers exercises his First Amendments rights. According to Mills, “I’m concerned about the hatred, about the words that should not be used in a democracy. I hope that people will realize that hateful words can have consequences.”

Since “hateful words” was this summer’s widely used phrase attached to S.B. 1070 advocates, I translate Mills as follows: “If you speak out against illegal immigration and, heaven forbid, support legislation that curbs it, people might get shot.”

All anyone knows today is that Loughner has a long, troubled history of unstable, unpredictable behavior. As it happens, he lives in Tucson. He could just as easily live in your neighborhood.

In the 24 hour news cycle, intelligent debate about the causes behind the slaughter and what the broad consequences should be is beyond reach. In truth, Loughner probably had no motive. According the Bureau of the Census, more than 230 million Americans over age 18 live in the United States. Statistically, a small percentage of them will be criminally insane and, yes, “haters,” although the two will often be rolled into one. But that tiny portion of the population isn’t cause for restricting the First Amendment — the goal of Dupnik, Mills, and others who have weighed in over the weekend.

Finally, here’s an oddity to consider. In April 2009 Jiverly Wong, a Vietnamese immigrant marched into a Binghamton, New York, community center where English as a second language classes were taught. Wong killed 14 people including himself. Later, while gathering evidence, policemen learned that Wong had told a work colleague that “America sucks.”

While Giffords’ tragic shooting has sparked a flurry of critics demanding that limits be placed on Americans right to free speech, Wong’s mass killings prompted no similar outrage arguing for tightening federal immigration laws to avoid admitting unstable refugees who have little probability of assimilating. In fact, within days, the Wong case vanished from the news.

The stark disparity between what immigration causes get championed and which are buried is telling. What’s clear so far in the Loughner case is that S.B. 1070 advocates have been and will continue to be falsely accused of guilt by association.

This entry was posted in Floyd Reports, News Reports, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Will AZ Shooter Kill the First Amendment?

  1. paddy0071946 says:

    Folks, just watch what will come of the horrific murders in Tucson? In my opinion Obammy boy and his crew will, once again, take advantage of a bad situation to promote their agenda of censorship of news and free speech, immigration, the economy, anti-Constitutioninal issues, anti-White people, tax and spend mentality, entitlement policies, Gov't growth, anti-Business, anti-American, anti-Christian, and pro-Muslim and terroristic threats. If American Patriots don't get off their ass's and fight to change our political enviroment, we might as well get our burial site in order because that would be a better alternative than what lies ahead if we let Obammy continue on the path he has laid out!

  2. kenny1801 says:

    What motivated this MURDERER to do what he did has EVERYTHING to do with his IDEALS he got from the CRAP he was READING!!! THE SAME CRAP OBAMA and HIS HENCHMEN READ and STUDY!!!!

  3. icetrout says:

    Past time to do away with the party of the Jackass.

  4. teapartyrulz says:

    too bad the shooter didn't get Dupe-nik instead! If he (Dupnik) doesn't like Arizona enforcing the LAWS of the NATION or STATE he lives in….he should RESIGN from his job & LEAVE THE STATE!!! Go live in Massachussetts instead! They're probably more to his political liking!

    • Edwardkoziol says:

      Totally agree but you forgot Vermont with Leaky Leahy and Bernie Sanders.If he goes to mass Barney franks might try to make him.

  5. dhellew2 says:

    Did you happen to notice that the shooter, the sheriff, and the reporter are all liberals? Birds of a feather….. socialist fools.

  6. FredandDeb says:

    Plain and simple, NO, the AZ shooter won't kill the First Amendment, LIBERALS will! They must do away with the Constitution entirely before they can finish implementing their agenda. And remember: That means by any and every possible means at their disposal. Passing the blame? Certainly. Deception? Of course. Changing history? Absolutely. Lying? Incessantly. Killing? What do YOU think? As long as the lamestream media is completely on their side now, even killing a few people here and there is necessary for the "greater good" of all! No doubt there is a special place in Hell for every one of them.

  7. eddyjames1952 says:

    the first thing the media should have realized is that any nut job that would shoot an unarmed 9 year old girl, or a woman in the back just has to be a Democrat, they have no morals or qualms about back stabbing types of activities, sneaky back shooting liberals sneak bills through all the time. only a Democratic supporter would consider shooting someone in the back ,Just like Lee Harvey Oswald did, in the back, every chance they get. not man enough to stand and face their victim one on one.

  8. gow0 says:

    I'm dropping any pretence of political correctness. I will say what I think ALWAYS.

    Dupnik is a good name for this 'Dup-nik' sheriff.

    Loughner is an idiot, and belongs in a prison-psyco center, where he would never get out.

  9. ImpeachZero says:

    So we get to watch the dog and pony show over and over. The republicans are now the stars in this show. Bull crap!! why go for all these bills and try to remove them???? JUST REMOVE THE FRAUD IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! that will make all this void. No media no libril crap just the workings of the laws and constitution. Simple!! But we have to go threw the show and it gets watered down and becomes personal attacks on the republicans. Like trying to fight a war using toddlers. Get Oblunder out and it stops all this.. This is costing our children money as we watch the show. Pop corn peanuts anyone

  10. hijinx60 says:

    This will be used as a stepping-stone to advance the UN Small Arms Treaty that Clinton is trying to advance. It will strip the Constitution of the Second Amendment and give the UN control of our firearms. This is no joke. They will have us like they do Japan, Australia, Great Britan, Canada, France, Spain, England, and a multitude of other nations. Single shot weapons only, small caliber, registered and liscensed only. Once this right is gone, so is the nation.

  11. Irosin says:

    I believe there is a problem that starts in the classroom where some of these radical, communist, progressive high school teachers and college professors are teaching our kids what they believe in, while NOT teaching, HONEST and TRUE American history, and about our founders, the Constitution and patriotism in the classroom. Instead they are teaching our young people communism, Marxism, fascism, radicalism and terrorism. Just look at all the people such as Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, Frances Fox Piven, Van Jones, Joel Rogers and many, many others who surround Obama, who were themselves radical nut jobs and are now professors teaching their beliefs to our students. How can these people be in these positions? These teachers and professors need to be removed from the classrooms before they do anymore harm.

  12. DaNangMe says:

    Its obvious that Dupnik is already trying to make it difficult for the prosecution to convict Loughner which falls in line with the liberal agenda to protect the "rights" of the perpetrator. The King of perpetrators will be visiting Pima County today and will be accompanied by Napolitano, Holder, and a Supreme Court Justice, so Dupnik will be in good company since he refused to enforce the illegal immigration law that that Holder is suing Arizona for. The true purpose of the visit is for the King and his Court to attend a memorial service or will that only be the elephant in the room. Truth is, past attempts to display sincerety have failed to convince anyone that this is not just another attempt to "take advantage of a crisis."

  13. Pingback: Wagin’ War on Mad, Murderous Metaphors

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>