Shared publicly  - 
Any bets on whether this'll be considered treason, or if the media will even bother with such inflammatory eliminationist rhetoric?
Jack H's profile photoJason Thibeault's profile photoRichard Wilson's profile photo
Jack H
What an absolutely insane bit of reporting. The headline makes it sound, purposefully, I'm sure, like Breitbart is calling on people in the tea party to fire the first shot.
The actual quote is, "They call me gay, there are death threats… There are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on."
So clearly he's saying that sometimes he thinks it would be okay if the liberals bashing him fired the first shot.
I responded on the post itself but in summary, given the other stuff he says immediately after this, it really sounds like he's considering firing the first shot because he knows it's a line liberals "won't cross". This isn't a misinterpretation, it's at absolute worst hyperbole built off something Breitbart himself claims is unclear thinking.
Jack H
+Jason Thibeault Really?
He says, and I'll just paraphrase here...
Go ahead, make good on all your threats against me, because we can fight back and win.
And you take that to be him encouraging his followers to fire the first shot.
And by paraphrasing, you're saying things that I simply don't see in the original quote.

I agree that that's a more charitable interpretation of the quote if you take the part of the quote you pulled in isolation, but there's more there than that.
Jack H
+Jason Thibeault The only way you can interpret this as he, or his followers, being the one to "fire the first shot" is if you delete his words, "Bring it on." He absolutely is not saying he, or his followers, should fire the first shot...he's telling the other side to bring it on, go ahead and fire that first shot.
It's like someone yelling and screaming about "I'm going to kick your a$$" and the other person saying, "Bring it on" because the other person knows he can beat the blow-hard anyway.
There is no other way to look at this quote.
The "journalism" was sloppy and obviously biased against Mr. Breitbart, trying to make him and people like him look like violence-prone radicals.
No, you don't have to delete the "bring it on" for it to work exactly as I said. He also, if you read the rest of the quote, said conservatives outnumber liberals and have all the guns, and are only capable of winning "propaganda wars" and not real wars.

Seriously, considering all the people running around protests with guns and signs saying "time to water the tree of liberty", how much of a stretch is it to say this guy is going to take credit for, rather than disavow, his words after a hypothetical civil war?
Have to disagree Jason. 'Fire the first shot' is a dare to liberals, not a call to conservatives. Yes, in his 'unclear moments' he's actually looking forward to shots being fired. And yes he thinks liberals don't shoot because they know the conservatives have the guns. As opposed to, you know, not even considering firing shots.
Jack H
+Jason Thibeault Okay, I really don't know how to get you to see what he is saying in pretty clear English.

If I'm at a bar and some jerk comes up and starts yelling that he's going to kick my a$$ and I say, "Bring it on" then according to your logic I'm the one who starts any fight that ensues.
I don't get your logic, and if you can't see it by now, I doubt you ever will.
Here's a question, then. Knowing that the right wing lunatic fringe of the Tea Party is rife with people itching for a shooting fight, and that they love Andrew Breitbart, are Breitbart's words close enough to a spark to ignite the powderkeg?
+Jack Huesman I see exactly what you say he's saying. I can read the first part of his quote in isolation and thoroughly agree that he's just waiting for us to start the violence. I have even agreed from the start. My problem is that everything he says after that is a rallying cry. "We have the guns." "We outnumber them." "We have the support of the military."

As stupid as this is, in some southern states, I understand there have traditionally been provisos in the legal system for "fighting words", considering them as good as striking first. If you say "bring it on" that can, in some circumstances, get you struck, and it would be considered your own fault.
Jack H
+Jason Thibeault First-off, I don't "know" that there is a right-wing "lunatic" fringe of any party, let along the tea party. Second, even if true, what evidence do you have that they are "itching for a shooting fight"?
It's a theme, not a single statement. Just like Palin's cross hairs on Gifford's district. I think the thing to note is that only one side is having wet dreams about their toys. In that environment, a car's backfire could start a shooting match (with only one side armed).
Um... and "don't retreat, reload" is referring to what surveyor-related convention?
Add a comment...