I bet if this Congress Woman lives and she is functional she will become the new replacement for Sarah Brady.
Maybe or maybe not, but it will be very significant in any event. Undoubtedly she will come under intense pressure from the anti-gun groups to support their agenda.
It is interesting to look at the conduct of other public figures who have been shot, or whose relatives have been victims. In general, it seems that liberals use their victimhood to promote restrictions on gun rights, while conservatives do not. The Bradys come first to mind, although the shooting may have led to an idealogical flip. I don't know if they were that conservative to begin with. Then there is Carolyn McCarthy who used her husband's shooting death as a springboard to election to the HoR on an anti-gun platform. The assassinations of JFK and RFK led to GCA 1968, and Teddy was known to be a rabid antigunner.
On the conservative side, President Reagan and his family and supporters never used his shooting by John Hinkley to lobby for gun controls. Neither did President Ford, who was shot at by a would-be assassin, nor did Gov. George Wallace who was gravely injured when he was shot.
I don't mean to go too far with this line of thinking, but I would speculate that liberals are more likely to employ appeals to emotion to further their agendas than are conservatives. Note my use of "more"; I'm not claiming that conservatives are immune to emotional appeals and justifications either.
Paul
Stupidity has its way, while its cousin, evil, runs rampant.
