When was the last time we had a crazed LIBERAL gunman?

[Atman]

You never seem to hear of one of these guys going off because they want more freedom and liberty for Americans. They never seem to go shoot up churches and schools because they want to send a message about equality and fairness. Seems to me, there is just something about being a right-winger which underscores the pathology of the hard right. The need to control and the fear of losing that control; the need to FORCE other people to accept their way of seeing things. Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but seriously...who was the last crazed "liberal" gunman, and what was his manifesto?


ON EDIT, since I still have time to do so...PLEASE READ MY POST #13 BEFORE YOU JUMP ON THE 'BASH ATMAN' BANDWAGON. And thank you to those who've been able to answer without making it personal attack. I asked the question knowing full well there probably WERE some liberal gunmen, but I just couldn't think of any. I wasn't looking for an ideological fight.

.

[Rocknrule]

1. Worst thing liberals ever did = burn down a restaurant in Vail, no deaths

Worst thing conservatives ever did = Oklahoma City bombing

[fishnfla]

45. Sterling Hall bombing Madison Wis. 1970

1 dead, 4 injured.

[LiberalEsto]

2. The empathy factor

To be a liberal, you have to be able to imagine yourself in another's shoes. Conservatives cannot.

[slackmaster]

3. I caution you about trying to make this a right vs. left thing

Here's the caption in the photo's context:

The small signs say "Adult male cambodian from 20 to 30 years old," and so on. They sorted the skulls into categories.

http://www.ravenna.com/~forbes/photos/236.html

Seems to me, there is just something about being a right-winger which underscores the pathology of the hard right.

I agree with the "winger" and "hard" parts, but in the words of a Chinese friend a left jack boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack boot up your ass.

[Tesha]

5. Pol Pot wasn't a "liberal". (NT)

[slackmaster]

7. No, but he wasn't right-wing either

Just extreme. Extreme anything is bad.

[TX-RAT]

17. Extreme anything is bad.

Yep

[Critters2]

4. Actually, this guy wrote about standing up for those oppressed

by the wealthy, BMW set. So...

But, right-wing, left-wing, crazy is crazy.

[HamdenRice]

6. There were lots before the 1970s

Weathermen
John Wojtowicz and Salvatore Naturile (Dog Day Afternoon duo)
Anarchists of the turn of the century
Mob connected union factions
Symbionese Liberation Army
Black Panther Party (not all, but some of the CA factions)
Puerto Rican separatists (shot up Congress, bombed airports)

The difference is that the authorities took a -- ahem -- more stringent approach to leftist violence than to rightist violence, and therefore you are not likely to see it anymore.

On edit: I don't mean these groups were liberal, but they were on the left. Just as I wouldn't call the right wing crazies who go postal "conservatives"; they are right wing zealots.

[LiberalEsto]

8. These folks had no empathy for others

They had an agenda, and they THOUGHT they were helping others, but baiscally they were another brand of fascist.

[slackmaster]

11. They were authoritarians, extremists

Authoritarianism, the desire to control others, is the real problem. It's not a matter of ideology per se.

[HamdenRice]

12. Agreed nt

[Atman]

13. Point taken.

But those were actually "political" organizations. Not that it matters to the victims, but I was actually getting at these lone shooter types and their manifestos. I guess, in hindsight (since I can't pull the thread! LOL), another poster was correct in that these people are generally neither left nor right...just way out there, wherever that may be.

.

[BlooInBloo]

24. Yup - there's nothing more crazed than Negroes With Guns...

[Lil Missy]

9. This had NOTHING to do with his politics. It's about MENTAL ILLNESS.

And, I have not heard a single word about where he stood on the spectrum of politics.

As much as I would love to blame things like this on the ultra-conservative mentality, I just don't think it is relevant here. And the other side of THAT coin would be (somehow) that it was ultimatly Clinton's fault. A very tiresome saw.

[slackmaster]

14. But this is DU, and someone has to take a shot at making every issue political

Reminds me of my college days.

[Atman]

15. It was just a question.

Weren't those allowed in your college days? Read my "Point Taken" post. I post on DU to BE EDUCATED, not just spout my own views. There have been some good responses so far. Yours, otoh, really contributed nothing but snark.

.

[slackmaster]

20. In my college days, one had to politicize some things in order to get the best grade

I took advanced photography. You could produce technically flawless, artistically compelling work, and still get only a B unless it made some kind of left-leaning or feminist political statement.

[Atman]

22. LOL! Yeah...I can see that.

Good point. But seriously, I wasn't trying to make it a left-right thing, I was asking a serious question to which I didn't know the answer. I didn't think about it being taken as a manifesto of its own. But as you stated, some on DU.......

Peace.

.

[Lil Missy]

19. Yeah, I see that. I saw a post this morning suggesting this case was a bush conspiracy. *ugh*

And this was a long term DUer! Just absurd.

[Postman]

10. How about Leon Czolgosz?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz

[John Q. Citizen]

16. We've had lone gunmen who apparently held both far leftist and rightist

views simultaniously. Oswald for instance was both a member of the fair play for Cuba committe while at the same time a US intel asset.

[Bitwit1234]

18. Well Atman is not making it liberal vs right if you read the right wing blogs

you will see they are blaming it on a Liberal Gunman. They are saying liberals are cheering and praising the gunman. So saying it like it really is, the right wings love of guns is really the truth. There is no more state in this country where you can purchase guns more freely and without a lot of regulations than in Virginia.

[EstimatedProphet]

44. Really?

That's so stupid it's laughable on it's face. Not just because NO ONE is cheering what Cho did, but also because of one little talking point the Retardicans forgot they always brought up:

Aren't college campuses supposed to be the Ivory Towers of Liberalism, according to the right? Aren't faculty supposed to be Liberal Icons?

So why would liberals cheer someone going onto an Ivory Tower of Liberalism campus and shooting up Liberal Icons? Especially by a Liberal Gunman?

Fuck are they ever stupid!

[havocmom]

21. How come I'm the first to give this an R?

The gentleman posed an excellent question.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. And a misleading one n/t

[havocmom]

30. As a volunteer who 'manned the lines' at Planned Parenthood Clinics

I have to tell ya, I saw a lot of unhinged rt wingers filled with hate and threatening violence to try and intimidate those of us who actually put our bodies between them and patients getting health care.

Never once saw a left wing threatening violence.

Same experience in 60s & 70s when protesting war and a very crooked administration.

Went to some RW Fundy churches and too often heard suggestions (from pulpits) that SOMEBODY needs to teach those people a lesson. Never heard that in more liberal churches.

Lots of threats in lots of actions. Some, even stalked and followed us home. NEVER from anybody on the left.

But, that is just decades of personal observation.

[Kelly Rupert]

33. Certainly in America, the right is more prone to threatening behavior,

since they're more likely to believe in authoritarianism. However, left-wing bahvior of that sort is hardly unknown in the world, as China during those same decades would demonstrate.

[havocmom]

37. They have " crazed LIBERAL gunmen" in China?

ah, THAT was the wording of the OP's question. Not about revolutions and political wars... lone crazed gunmen.

[Kelly Rupert]

43. During the Cultural Revolution, yes.

It wasn't a revolution or a political war. It was...well, chaos brought about by what amounts to something like a government-encouraged political movement of Chos. They weren't so much "lone" as "en masse," which ended up being orders of magnitude worse.

The situations aren't meant to be comparable; I'm just showing that left-wingers are just as capable of the insane belief that grassroots violence will fix an "immoral" society as right-wingers are.

[havocmom]

48. um, it was a war - according to a friend who was there

[Kelly Rupert]

59. Only by a very loose definition of the word "war."

[havocmom]

63. My friend WAS THERE

She called it war

[fishnfla]

42. Never say never: Sterling Hall bombing, Madison Wis, 1970

Some say the beginning of the end for the anti-war movement, at least for those who loved peace. Stolen Van, fertizer, and jet fuel...1 dead and 4 injured.

[havocmom]

49. tax dodger who got on school board to punish others by killing kids?

Sick, anti-war, but not liberal. Liberal does not = LEFT

There is a difference between liberals and left wing authoritarians. We have both here on DU. There are plenty here who will declare others to be not liberal for the offense of disagreeing with their own narrow views.

The very definition of Liberal would be, well, liberal wouldn't it? Sorta precludes the 'do it my way or die' crowd from any political side, but that's just my interpretation, your's can vary, cuz, see, I'm liberal

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Lee Harvey Oswald

He was active in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Hasn't Fair Play for Cuba Committee been acknowledged as a

CIA front organization?

[Kingofalldems]

71. False, a marxist is not a liberal

Nice try.

[jobycom]

25. Careful. We may have had one on Monday.

Read his writings, read what he what he said. He hated the "Christian Nazis," and the rich and the oppression of the weak. He saw himself as a new Jesus Christ, fighting to save his "children" and his "brothers and sisters" from the powerful. He believed he was starting a revolution against the powerful and rich. He used the term "Democratic Terrorism" in a way that suggests he was complaining about the attempts to spread democracy across the planet, the way Bush is doing. The phrase "Ismael AX" implies a sympathy with oppressed Muslims, as well, as though he felt a kinship (again, the brothers and sisters terminology) with victims of "Democratic Terrorism" across the world.

From one page of his manifesto and the clips I've seen of him, if I had to assign a political ideology, I'd call him extreme leftist. Not liberal, not Democratic, but leftist. Sort of a social Marxist.

Mostly he was just mentally ill, and he was trying to blame external causes for the pain and suffering he felt. Naturally, that meant he would lash out at the powerful, and right now that would be the conservatives. I don't think he was motivated by any real political ideology, he was just attacking anything powerful. But I wouldn't be quick to call him a conservative. Who knows what we'll find out when all the info is released. What if we found out he hung around here? He liked to write, after all, and one of his professors said that was the only way he could really communicate. It's not a stretch to imagine him on web sites like this one.

How would we feel then, if he were a DU poster? Would we feel any guilt, knowing the anger our arguments sometimes attain around here, knowing that some of our rants against the powerful may have twisted his mind further? If not, we shouldn't be so quick to blame him on the conservatives, either.

[Bjorn Against]

64. "Democratic Terrorism" sounds more like a freeper term to me...

He seems to imply that Democrats are the terrorists, he doesn't complain about Bush at all. And in case you were not aware Bush is NOT spreading democracy around the world. He is destroying democracy at home and abroad.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. That's A Really Naive Interpretation With All Due Respect.

He wasn't referring to liberals whatsoever by saying 'Democratic Terrorists'. It's actually a really silly premise to think that. He means Democratic as in Democratic government. He means Democratic as in bringing 'democracy' to Iraq. He wasn't referring to a political party. He was referring to our governmental policy. Sheesh.

[Bjorn Against]

66. Where does he say it is about bringing "democracy to Iraq"?

He doesn't. He doesn't even mention Iraq, and he capitalizes the word "Democratic" implying it is indeed the party.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. Ok. Even After Being Informed, If You Still Want To Believe That Then I Can't Stop You. Have Fun!

[Bjorn Against]

68. You informed me?

Never need any facts to inform people do you?

[jobycom]

69. Followed by "CHristian Nazi" and his rants about rich kids?

He capitalizes every label he thinks important, like "Weak, Defenseless, and Innocent Children," "Christian Nazis," "People," "my Brothers and Sisters." The gist of that page is that the weak are to rise up against the strong. He never mentions a party, never rails against "liberals" the way talk radio does. "You have no clue of what revolution I have started." His enemies are "Christian Nazis, Apostles of Sin, Crucifiers of the Innocent, Kim Jong-ils of the West, American (can't read it) and Osamas of America."

In the whole context, remembering also his claim to be the new Jesus Christ and his railing against the rich and powerful who have all the material goods they want, does not sound like a right winger to me. In that context, nothing on that page or in his ramblings sounds right wing or seems to describe the Democratic Party or any of its ideals. Maybe there is more elsewhere, but based on what I've seen, he's not speaking the language of the right wing.

[Kelly Rupert]

26. I would say, oh, a few days ago.

He hated the rich and entitled, and saw himself as fighting for the oppressed underclass. Total Marxist revolutionary. Liberal as the day is long.

----------------------

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that's an irresponsible warping of his views. It's no more wrong than calling him a conservative, calling him a libertarian, calling him an authoritarian, or calling him anything other than a deeply insane, deeply twisted person. He had no political views other than an overwhelming sense of hatred and resentment.

There are no "conservative" gunmen, or any "liberal" gunmen. Neither American political ideology has a place for the mass-murderer, just as no religion has a place for the fanatical terrorist. Such acts are driven by pathological hatred, not by political conviction. Any political statements are an excuse for hatred, not a cause of it.

This isn't about politics. This is about a frighteningly disturbed person, a system ill-equipped to deal with him, and the horrific tragedy he unleashed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. There is nothing liberal about Marxists.

When the Marxists took power in Russia, the first thing they did was arrest Kerensky and the liberals. Liberals are an anathema to authoritarians of all stripes.

[Kelly Rupert]

31. Marxists are authoritarian leftists.

You can't exclude them from the political left, nor can you arbitrarily narrow "liberal" to mean "relatively moderate leftists with whom I agree," if you're at the same time claiming that right-wing nutjobs are "conservatives."

[pampango]

36. That would take away half the fun of posting and reading at DU.

If we cannot make up our own definition of "liberal" (excluding any person or political philosophy we damn well want to exclude), while at the same time pushing anyone into the "conservative" label who we think will embarrass the GOP, much of the fun of would disappear.

[Kelly Rupert]

46. Heh, got me there.

Outrage is entertainment

[havocmom]

38. But not LIBERAL leftists

There's a difference. (Edited to add Authoritarians not Liberal, whether they go left or right. EXTREME is not liberal.

Even Rush knows that, but won't publicly admit it.

[Kelly Rupert]

40. And, again,

you can't BOTH claim that marxists aren't liberal but that right-wing gunmen are conservative. Either the terms refer to the American political mainstream, or they refer to everything left/right of center. You can't pick one for liberal and one for conservative.

[havocmom]

50. Authoritarians are not LIBERAL. They can be left or right, but not liberal

Liberal means, well liberal

Those who paint all LIBERALS as being the same as LEFTIST EXTREMISTS are well represented on Hate Radio and have had the microphone for their propaganda and lies for over a couple decades, but is still does not mean that leftists extremists and authoritarians are Liberal.

There is a difference.

There is liberal and conservative. There is also EXTREMISTS on both sides and neither side necessarily agrees with them.

Are ALL conservatives a bunch of zealots who want to burn books along with the Constitution? No. And most conservatives who actually ARE conservative do not align themselves with the zealots.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. What I'm saying is Left does not equal Liberal.

Technically speaking, most American conservative republicans are liberals, in that they support democracy, democratic institutions and democratic principles. They may interpret them differently than progressives do, but fundamentally, Democracy is Liberal.

The real divide is not Left vs Right, but Liberal vs Authoritarian. Go far enough to the left and you will find a RW authoritarian - look at all the neocons who were marxists in their college days.

When Hitler needed breathing time in his conquests, he didn't sign agreements with liberal democracies - he signed a pact with the soviet union.

We need to come up with a vocabulary that reflects this. Jimmy Carter tried it, declaring a pox on both houses, refusing support to RW dictatorships like the Shah of Iran and Samoza in Nicaragua while still opposing the LW dictatorships of the Soviet Union. Maintaining the old paradigms does nothing but increase conflict.

[Pyrzqxgl]

55. No they're not, not all of them

I've known as many breeds of Marxist (authoritarian & anarchist, militant & pacifist) and I can arbitrarily narrow "liberal" to mean just about
anything I want it to be. Conservatives are "right-wing nut jobs" & deserve to be labeled as such.

[trotsky]

52. ...

[piedmont]

32. Does not compute! Most of these people don't have a rational ideology. nt

[Dave From Canada]

34. I had no idea of the political leanings of the VT shooter. Although, it wouldn't suprise me.

Oh and don't forget the unabomber, ever read his "manifesto"?

[Kelly Rupert]

35. Read post #25

IMO, though, he had no political leanings other than "insane."

[Catherine Vincent]

39. Do we know what political affiliation this guy was?

He's dead. No one knows for sure.

[Kelly Rupert]

41. Read post #25

[havocmom]

47. He seemed to be adverse to ex-gf making her own decisions

That is not Liberal thinking, no matter what political affiliation is on any piece of paper.

[Dave From Canada]

58. No, he was adverse to her not being with him anymore, and dating other people,

that's jealousy, not a political leaning.

[havocmom]

61. What he did was a tad more than jealousy

Showed a TOTAL breakdown at the fact that his former gf made her own decision about their relationship and then another decision about her future relationships. And then again, the situation with the former gf could easily be just the peg he hung his problems on.

The refusal to accept that she could do that does indicate an authoritarian streak to the control freak degree. That is more than jealousy. It is a leaning, whether political or just plain warped.

Liberals tend not to be authoritarians and do tend to respect the rights of others. True, youngsters tend to go for extremes in passion over any subject, but not accepting another's decision is more like, oh, Rush and the Ditto Heads than any liberal I ever met.

[Dave From Canada]

72. Well duh. Of course it's a tad more then just jealousy. But it's also a tad more then what you

originally said about him being adverse to his gf making her own decision. He killed 30+ people, so he wasn't too concerned with other people's decisions either. I think you're insane (no pun intended) to try and hang this shooter on a political peg. It goes way beyond politics. Sorry.

[havocmom]

73. no offense taken

you have every right to misinterpret me, and get it wrong

[havocmom]

74. bug induced dupe

[mainer]

51. How many liberals own guns? (Or heck, even know how to shoot one.)

The common factors in mass murder seem to be: 1. male and 2.access to weapons.

If you don't have guns around, you're less likely to commit mass murder.

[slackmaster]

56. Your first sentence is true, your second baseless

The common factors in mass murder seem to be: 1. male and 2.access to weapons.

Yes, even if that means access to explosives (e.g. Timothy McVeigh).

If you don't have guns around, you're less likely to commit mass murder.

Bogus statement. Someone who decides to commit mass murder can subsequently go get a gun, or some other weapon. You have no factual basis for claiming that absence of a gun makes a person less likely to commit mass murder.

[piedmont]

60. Guns give off mind-control waves.

Better protect yourself.

[havocmom]

62. Hmm, male & guns you say?

Mebbe we should take more than guns away? ( but with an element of an honest musing )

Problem is violence, not just guns. If the problem is guns, it might be guns & balls.

[zbdent]

54. Don't recall ... but ... right after 9/11, when it was said that "we would go after the terrorists"

I knew that Rush Limbaugh would be pushing to label environmentalists as "terrorists" ...

[AZBlue]

57. Equality and fairness are hardly right-wing doctrines.

I don't think this has anything to do with being right, left or in the middle. It has to do with (1) a society that rewards those who pick on and demean others and (2) unchecked mental illness.

[tjwash]

70. I don't think we need to explore a question like that.

Just my opinion, but no matter what your personal political affiliation you are going to see exactly what you want to see in this person.

I remember when Ted Kaczynski finally got brought in. How the Rush-Oreilly crowd immediately went on a 7 X 24 hate radio rampage on how his hatred of technology, and how he lived as one with nature in the mountains "proved" that he was a hardcore liberal and that we needed to disband the democratic party immediately. Others made the argument that because he targeted professors and teachers mostly with his bombs how that "proved" that he was a hardcore conservative.

In the end it is not productive in the least, and all it does is divide us as a people that much more, when we need to be discussing ways to work together.