Billboard Illustrating Past Gun Confiscation From Indians Gets Progressive Panties In A Wad

Progressives are frothing at the mouth over a bill board using the transgressions against the aboriginal peoples of the United States as effective rhetoric against gun control. The progressives, some of them claiming aboriginal blood, are saying that the board is overly insensitive:

Greeley resident Kerri Salazar, who is of Native American descent, said she was livid when she learned about it. She said she doesn't have a problem with the gun rights message, but she's offended the Native American people were singled out, apparently without their consent.

And another

she thinks the billboards are making light of atrocities the federal government committed against Native Americans. 

But my question is, are they really?  The arguments against the insensitivity of the bill board are patently absurd. The bill board itself is ironic, as anyone with even a basic sense of history is aware of the betrayals and abuses by the US government to the aboriginals of America. Surrendering their arms may have been only one part of this sad chapter in American history, but it was an important one. The 'Native Americans' weren't singled out they are the best example of the many broken promises our government has made over the years.

Undoubtably the hurt feelings by some are genuine; we must never forget the societal damage caused by popular media, schools and even religion pushing cultural pussification. They are like the proverbial Pavlov's dog.  Everyone has been told by progressives for so long that any action or idea from the right can be construed as racist, that even when the argument essentially defends minority rights, there is a knee jerk reaction against it. I highly doubt those same individuals complaining about right wing minority insensitivity would voice concerns if the billboard used aboriginal abuse to highlight why we should be wary of the Patriot Act.

There is also something a bit of disingenuous to the whole controversy.  There is a reason why they are focusing on the 'insensitivity' of the billboard versus the message.  If they focused on the message they would lose the argument, and they know it. The government asked that the aboriginal people hand over their firearms, some resisted, but others did not base on promises of the US government. Promises that were promptly broken. I am hard pressed to think of any rhetorical argument that could be made so succinctly as this billboard. Government tyranny, minority oppression and civil liberties all packaged neatly together in less than twelve words. So, because they can't actually argue the idea that the billboard puts forward, they attack the medium by claiming it is insensitive.