Are All These Calls for Civility Really Just Calls for Censorship?

Yes.

Let's just look at how things progressed this past weekend. Within moments of the news of the shootings various members of the left, aided by the idiot Sheriff Dumb*** of Pima County and many in the mainstream media, began to claim that people like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and others were somehow complicit in this shooting because of their "heated political rhetoric". None of those accusations were deemed to be uncivil.

However, when Palin and Limbaugh responded to those scurrilous charges their responses were immediately deemed uncivil. Apparently the new definition of incivility is daring to respond to outrageous accusations. The left doesn't want civility, they want silence.

And now that it's become obvious that the shooter wasn't influenced by political rhetoric (according to a good friend he never watched the news, listened to talk radio, and didn't even vote in the last election), wouldn't it be civil for those who made the bogus charges to apologize for their hasty accusations?  Have any such apologies been forthcoming?

No.  All we've heard are calls for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine (government-enforced censorship), more laws that wouldn't have stopped this shooting, and demonization of conservatives who dare to go against the politically correct view of the incident.

To the left civility is like bipartisanship, a one-way street.  And if they can bully us into "civil" discussions they know they can effectively censor our speech.

It's okay for political rhetoric to get heated.  It should be heated at times because we're talking about important issues that affect the future of the country.  Ours is not a nation of wimps, though there are those who actually believe wimpiness is a virtue.  We need to continue to passionately support the issues in which we believe, and equally passionately opposed those who would do this nation harm.  If that's considered uncivil, so be it.