[Vision2020] A Resolution for the 112th Congress (after the Tucson Tragedy)

[Andreas Schou]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> Then why not make them look like cross hairs? I have been effectively
> peering through rifle scopes for nearly twice the number of years you've
> been alive. In a scope the lines that make up the reticle can not physically
> extend beyond the diameter of the tube which defines the circle and they are
> always black.

That's true. Crosshair clip art (and the pseudo-crosshairs that appear
on paper targets) do not follow these restrictions. An informal google
image search of the word "crosshair" turned up a 60/40 split between
physically impossible and physically possible crosshairs.

http://www.wpclipart.com/signs_symbol/targets/crosshair/crosshair_5.png
http://www.wpclipart.com/signs_symbol/targets/crosshair/crosshair_2.png
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/v/Z/s/J/Y/y/crosshair-md.png
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_246/120497003010kO4Q.jpg
http://www.pyramydair.com/images/acc/AGE-TAR-Yellow.jpg

The results looked pretty much like this. Then, of course, there's the
series of shooting-range puns in the Facebook post that accompanied
the map. "We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the
first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will
bring common sense to Washington." Is that threatening? No. Of course,
she called it a "bullseye icon" on November 4th of last year.

I don't think she's provoking violence -- I reserve that condemnation
for candidates like Allen West and Sharon Angle, who actively promote
violent rebellion -- but it certainly wasn't a "surveyors symbol," and
she's lying about it today.

-- ACS