Again, since there's a lot being slung around, I guess I should take a moment and define what I'm saying.
I am not saying that this gunman was filled with the thoughts of the Tea Party and conservatives, steeped in the mythology, and fed on the political rhetoric until it came pouring out the end of his glock. I'm not even saying he's a disciple of the more coarse elements of the right.
If, once he starts talking or we find out through investigation, that there is a direct link, I will be very amazed.
At best, for that connection, he will be considered a "Lone Wolf." That is, somebody who never was really a part of any organization but hung out at the edges. Who believed it was their mission to do so and to handle the dirtier side of things while maintaining a distance from the organization/leadership.
What I am saying is that the atmosphere created by that rhetoric, the fetishising of firearms, and changing the political discourse from one of compromise to revolution opens the door to such actions. That is, it becomes possible. Such actions are not so far to the fringe. That because people talk in this manner, the possibility of such actions become greater.
Don't believe me?
It's exactly the same argument against giving full informational sex education, and free condoms, to teenagers.
And the people who are protesting way too much are the same people who make the same argument to either end sex education or declare it should only be abstinence only. Because, you know, talking about sex openly and frankly might give people ideas that they may want to try it themselves. Just like talking in the terms of "if not ballots, then bullets" and "second amendment solutions" and some of the even more softer links (such as the "Help me defeat Giffords, come and shoot a fully automatic M16").