I think it is time that we start talking about the terrorists among us. But first, I am going to clarify something.
I am from the south, I grew up hunting, I own guns, and I believe in gun ownership and gun rights. I am also vehemently anti-NRA. I don't care if it's a contradiction in some people's mind, but no one I know needs an assault rifle. Nor should anyone break into my house without at least having the realization that they might, that very evening, die. But this is not a pro- or anti-gun post. This is an anti-terrorist post. It is true that guns don’t kill people. But apparently angry, white, jobless, gun-owners who get their information from right-wing pundits do. Three high-profile cases have come up in less than a month: Jim D. Adkisson, Timothy Dale Johnson, and now Tharin Gartrell and his as of yet unidentified accomplices.
It seems that when some fringe element of the lib side make a claim outside the Overton window, we all get painted as weirdos and are encouraged to seek the high ground of accepted mediocrity. But when three instances of violence against liberals happen within a month, not a word is uttered by anyone in the msm about just how out of hand some in the right wing have become. That sort of public condemnation is important because it helps drive undecided voters AWAY from the psychos.
One commenter brought up that we should not lump commentators in with the nutcases. I agree. But as another commenter pointed out, violence often begins with the popular condemnation of one group, be they liberals, homosexuals, South Africans, or Jews.
So how do we advance this narrative in a way that makes it clear that does not paint every rural gun owner as a nutjob? How do we present this in a way that paints a clear picture? There are two sides to the debate, the side that talks things over and the side that shoots people for disagreeing?
I suggest that the trick lies in the way we talk about it. I remember when the concept of the "hate crime" was introduced to the 'Merican folks. I was still living in the south at the time, and though I was more liberal than my fellows, even I felt a little annoyed by language of the law. if a protected group gets beaten to shit it's a hate crime, but if a bunch of Skoal-dippin' Bubbas decide they don't like me because I ride a skateboard and beat the crap out of me, it's just a regular old crime. Now I do not want to start a war about why or why not that should be the case, so bear with me. The point is that the language itself caused some undo chaffing. It was easy to mock the language and therefore dismiss the concept that the law was trying to get at. Beyond that, the charge of the crime would seem to be decided by the identity of the victim, not the identity of the criminal. And I think that was part of the reason for the resistance to the concept, itself. (Forgive me if this is scattered...just got off of a long day at work). Now, however, I think we have a better name for it, and I think that name is ready to be a part of our national consciousness: TERRORIST EXTREMISM. Let's revisit the idea of the hate crime and make it about something more people understand. Now, how do we make this designation part of the mainstream dialog?