It’s not that complex. We’ve been told the West was wild and lawless [it wasn’t, really] so the western setting indicates a perceived breakdown of law and order. The attacker represents Obama, I’m guessing, (or some amalgam of Obama cohorts—such as Rahm and Ezekiel Emanuel) and the way his healthcare plan will hit old folks hardest. The man with the gun (a salt-of-the-earth conservative) doesn’t want to turn vigilante but finally feels forced into it. But of course we all fear the current administration will stab gun owners and gun rights in the back. 3.5 years of Freudian therapy says this is at least a close interpretation, anyway. Fwiw.
Thank you.
Only difference I came up with was the backstabber: It wasn’t someone DIStrusted it was someone trusted and they didn’t want the woman, or her type, being protected.