Caesarea4 saidI'm not saying anyone should be prosecuted or go to jail.
But this is a warning that the rhetoric needs to be toned down.
That the leaders must teach the followers that what unites us is stronger than what divides us.
I'm sure you agree this is a better answer than "we may never know."
This attack by Loughner should be seen in context. Given that there have been no indications that he watched or was influenced by any modern political figures other than Giffords with whom he had a personal encounter, to suggest this is a warning for anything, seems entirely inappropriate - as if saying a plane crash would be a warning to fasten your seatbelt while you drive. Interesting ideas but independent ideas.
In context, you also have to recognize that violence in the US is on the decline despite supposedly heated rhetoric and a supposed culture of violence. It is therefore very much unclear given practically any politician of note has denounced any use of violence both now and in the past, that toning down the use of metaphors that include the words "campaigning" and "targeting" that have military/aggressive roots would do any good.
Finally, liberals have been as violent if not more so with their rhetoric. Examples galore:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ (a "right wing" site)
But what becomes more clear is not that for many this is not truly a call for civility, but merely a partisan attempt at blunting Republican momentum as they attempt to undo what has been done in the past several years.
Michelle "anchor baby" Malkin's entire existence is one big hypocrisy. But let's put that aside for now and address the silliness of her blog post and your citation of it.
As we have said ad nauseum, you cannot find a single instance of a Democratic or liberal politician or leader (or even a pundit) that has stooped to the vitriol of Palin, or Rush or Beck.
Even Mike Malloy - who is the most intemperate left wing talk show host - is not as mainstream to the liberals as Rush or Beck is to the right wing.
And then there are numerous examples on Malkin's list that are simply laughable. Attempts by anti-war activists to stop a military shipment is a protest of our country's foreign policy, and no one was harmed.
Property destruction - though illegal - is simply not in the same class of rhetoric or actions as "second amendment solutions" or "don't retreat, reload," unless you believe that inanimate objects and property are as or more valuable then human life.
Most of the other items on Malkin's post are either satire or metaphorical and obviously so (e.g. the child in the noose on the melting ice). That is not advocating we hang children, but pointing to how climate change will impact all of our children.
PS: ANSWER for the most part is a fringe group that most of us distance ourselves from specifically because of their tactics and rhetoric. The same cannot be said for those who identify with or support the Tea Party.