Yes, they are something should be done to constrain free speech, and gun possession, two of the basic and fundamental freedoms that marked the American ideals of the nation's founding:
e-mail from the Dem Party, titled "Tone Down the Rhetoric, Toughen Up the Laws"
[FONT=verdana,geneva]
"...There is no single response to the awful Tucson massacre.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]
But here are two we can embrace: let's call on elected leaders to (1) tone down the rhetoric and (2) toughen up the laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill...."[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]
http://www.democrats.com/tone-down-the-rhetoric-toughen-up-the-laws[/FONT]
Lib Dem Rep. Clyburn (during an NPR interview):
SIEGEL: Beyond self-restraint and self-policing, if you will, would you support, say, a move that would extend the legal bar against threatening the president or the vice president, to any threats made against any member of Congress?
Rep. CLYBURN: Well, I think we reached the point where that may be necessary. And I understand such legislation is going to be introduced. And if it is, I will support it. I may also try to amend it, because I think we might look at whether or not we ought to make it a federal crime to carry a loaded gun within a certain distance of people who are participating in federal elections.
Rep. Clyburn On Political Discourse : NPR
Reminds me of the Obama Truth Squads, whose mission was to silence those who would speak in deviation of the truths handed down by the anointed ones:
[FONT=times new roman,times]
"Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad during the presidential campaign." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]
The implied threat in the Channel 4 report is that prosecutors and sheriffs across Missouri will enforce "Missouri ethics laws" and conduct criminal investigations of "anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad" against Barack Obama. Although the report did not directly state that intent, that implied message was clearly conveyed."[/FONT]
American Thinker Blog: Missouri's Obama Truth Squads (updated Governor's statement)
Likewise, the lib dems would like to use this incident to legislate what may or may not be spoken, all in accord with their doctrine, would be the only permissable speech:
If you're asking who is "the anti-American left", that was a reference to today's leftist liberal wing, the direct ideological desendant of various strains of anti-American Marxist-Leninist rhetoric. Their is no dearth of materials on the history, and analysis of them:
David Shannon, The Socialist Party of America (1955);
Werner Sombert, Why is there no Socialism in the United States? (1976);
David Shannon, The Decline of American Communism (1959);
Kenneth Dolbeare, American Ideologies (1976);
Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran, Monopoly Capital (1966);
W. A. Williams, The Contours of American History (1964);
D.F.Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins: 1917-1960 (1968);
Gabriel Kolko, Main Currents in Modern American History (1976);
Daniel Yergin, Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the National Security State (1977);
Lawrence Wittner, Cold War America (1978);
Paul Jacobs and Saul Landau, The New Radicals (1966);
Jack Newfield, A Prophetic Minority (1966);
James Kunen, The Strawberry Statement (1968);
Ronald Berman, America in the Sixties (1968);
Charles Reich, The Greening of America (1969);
James Weinstein, The Decline of Socialism in America, 1912-1925 (1967);
Christopher Lasch, The Agony of the American Left (1969);
William Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power (1966);
Murray Bookchin, Post Scarcity Anarchism (1971);
C. Wright Millis, The Power Elite (1956); Ronald Taylor, Chavez and the Farm Workers (1975);
Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (1968);
Theodore Rozak, The Making of a Counter Culture (1969);
Massimo Teodori, ed., The New Left: A Documentary History (1969); Staughton Lynd, The Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (1968); Robert L. Allen, Black Awakening in Capitalist America (1974);
In objection to my point, it might be stated that today's libs may not have received the pure doctrinal training, which is true, but if one listens to any of them, almost as if reciting from the same little red book, the same pattern of propositions is repeated in their speech, and the same reliance on neosophism and resort to ad-hominem responses. Marvelous explanations are provided by Alston Chase and Alan Bloom.
The same patterns we saw in the Soviet union we see from the current left.
Compare the firing of NPR's Juan Williams, with the firing of dissidents in the Soviet union -- the pattern in both situations is a deviationist from the doctrine is discredited (insane, wingnut, bigot, deviationist, Trotskiyte, etc)
NPR Fires Juan Williams over Anti-Muslim Remarks - CBS News
"Soviet authorities attempted to repress these currents and activities by propaganda that discredited dissidents and their claims, ... removal of dissidents from their jobs ..."
The Dissident Movement
