Where do these geniuses come from? Seriously? First off, the shooter in Tucson never used threatening symbols or language against Judge Roll or Congresswoman Giffords. Does Robert Brady think assassins are going to hold up large signs that depict acts of violence minutes before they strike? "Here, read my symbols before I shoot you!" It's absurd.

Secondly, what on earth are "threatening symbols?" If I hold up a sign that depicts the U.S. Capitol building collapsing under the weight of our national debt, for example, couldn't that be perceived by some member of Congress as a "threatening" image? How about a STOP sign? Couldn't some member of Congress say a STOP sign seems threatening to them? Anything can be perceived as threatening, depending on the person perceiving it.

And what about threatening language? If I say that the U.S. Justice Department should march into the FDA with guns drawn and make armed arrests of the criminals running the FDA, couldn't FDA officials claim such a statement is "inciting violence" or makes them feel "threatened?" (But remember, the FDA routinely uses violence against the People in the case of armed FDA raids of vitamin companies.) (http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.html)

The idiocy of lawmakers who attempt to strip away our First Amendment rights in knee-jerk reactions never ceases to amaze me. What they're aiming for here is the ability to criminalize all criticism of the government. That's their pretext for imprisoning anyone who dares to point out the corruption and criminal behavior taking place on a daily basis inside the various branches and departments of the federal government (across all political parties, by the way, as even the Bush Administration was deeply corrupted with criminal behavior).

Rather than trying to run an honest government Of the People, By the People and For the People, it's a whole lot easier to just arrest dissenters and throw them in the gulag as if we all lived under Communist China rule.

What has become increasingly clear over the weekend of the Giffords shooting is that a few lawmakers on the left are all too quick to exploit this tragedy for their own political aims which include, of course, silencing all critics of the government as well as criminalizing all firearms ownership by private citizens.

A few radical police state lawmakers in Congress now seem determined to try to effectively banish the Bill of Rights in America by criminalizing any speech that's critical of the federal government. It's all part of an agenda to erode the freedoms of the American people: The TSA routinely violates the Fourth Amendment. The Bush Administration grossly violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Federal lawmakers violate the Tenth Amendment nearly every time they pass a law, and now several lawmakers on the left side of the aisle are exploiting this Giffords shooting to try to nullify the First and Second Amendments, too.

Fortunately for the rest of us, lawmakers like Rep. Robert Brady and Carolyn McCarthy are going to meet a thundering wall of resistance from mainstream Americans who are waking up to the importance of their rights as protected under the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that someone got shot is more than enough reason for some lawmakers to unleash yet another round of freedom-smothering police state legislation that would exploit this act of violence for the purpose of making government even more tyrannical and dangerous in the future. Because without the Bill of Rights protections, make no mistake that we are mere Citizen Slaves living under absolute rule by the very kind of tyranny our forefathers sought to escape.

Gabrielle Giffords, I can assure you, was a strong defender of the Bill of Rights and would never want her shooting to be exploited as a vehicle for taking away the rights of the American people. By calling for such actions, her own Democratic colleagues deeply dishonor her.