There's been a good bit of discussion of the appropriateness of using the language of armed conflict to describe attitudes of public contempt for legislators. You have Sharon Angle's invocation of Second Amendment Remedies for problems with Congress. Sarah Palin posted a map with crosshairs on names of electorally vulnerable Democrats, and she's fond of evoking gun violence in how to exchange with Liberals, with "Don't Retreat, Instead RELOAD" as the catchphrase.
A few years back, CBS golf analyst, David Feherty, offered up the following joke:
If you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama Bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and Bin Laden would be strangled to death
There was also a Nintendo DuckHunt-inspired game, Lame Duck Hunt (posted by "Americans for Prosperity"), where there are chances to really put the heads of Pelosi and Reid in some gunsights.
Now Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has been shot. And John M. Roll, the chief judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, fatally.
In light of these events, it's right to ask: is the language of violence appropriate for reasonable political exchange? Here's my initial try at an answer: People should be free to express their frustration and antagonism with those they oppose. And the manner they express that opposition, I think, can appropriately use the language of violent conflict. However, it is appropriate under the conditions that we are clear that the use of violent language is strictly metaphorical. War metaphors for argument can emphasize the offensive tactical elements of argumentative exchange. Some arguments are full frontal assaults, others are ambushes or surprise attacks, wherein one overwhelms an opponent. One may lay to waste a position, skewer a point, or blow up a case. Arguments may have a thrust, like that of a sword. And consequently, every thrust can be parried. One shores up defensive positions, and when defeated, one may be engage in rear-guard maneuvers. One’s best arguments are heavy artillery, and one brings them out in long-standing debates to lay siege to well-defended viewpoints.
That's how I see Palin's crosshairs map and her 'reload' line. The crosshairs are targets, that is, electoral targets – races that deserve focused attention. The 'reload' line is more about self-confidence and trying again. Neither are overt endorsements of violence. But then there's Angle, Feherty, and the Lame Duck Hunt game. These are considerably closer to endorsing real violence, not the metaphorical violence of winning an argument or election. Angle and Feherty seem to be endorsing the use of deadly force in the face of disagreement. The Duck Hunt game encourages you to put crosshairs right between Pelosi's eyes.
That is, there seems to be a difference between using metaphors of violence to endorse continued vigorous debate and exchange and using the language of violent confrontation as an endorsement of violent confrontation. Only the latter is morally unacceptable. The former may have other dangers (perhaps in seeing argumentative exchanges through the lens of war), but it is not the overt commitment to physical hurt.