Both views and/or positions are wrong. The shooting of 78-year- old Harry Whittington by Dick Cheney on Saturday showed 3 things.
Take that AARP!
In taking the action, Cheney exhibited the "bottom-line" approach he touted in 2000 by referring to his background as CEO of Halliburton (now a subsidiary of U.S. Taxpayer Inc.)
During his tenure, the only spot on his record was leaving it teetering on the brink of bankruptcy because, as CEO, he bought Drexel during a hunting trip having done no "due diligence", and leaving Halliburton absorbing Drexel's asbestos litigation which, as Dana Milbank of the Post reported in 2002, "Investors . . . are betting the liability is $8 billion to $9 billion".
Second, he showed why it is always important to stay "vigilant". After all, apparently, the 78- year- old was sneaking up on him. He didn't announce himself and was dressed in orange camouflage.
Taking into account the facts that:
!) Mr. Whittington managed to penetrate the security surrounding Dick;
2) He had a weapon;
3) He gave no warning;
4) He must have been sufficiently familiar with Western culture that, just like in cowboy movies (which depict places like Wyoming but were shot in Italy- "Linguini Westerns" or some such thing), he apparently knew enough to approach Dick with the sun at his back; and
Lastly, the man is (hopefully- not "was") a millionaire attorney. This shows how seriously the Administration takes "tort reform".
While there is a confusion as to the gentleman's field of specialty in the law, it is unlikely (or not) that he was an attorney that represented the "average person" (low to middle-class).