colourwheel

I don't even know why I am arguing over this.... you seem to clearly have the same notion TRoaches has on this... I provided a link so that you could learn the difference between natural and legal rights, but I can see that you did not bother to read up on it before replying. Now this is getting rediculous... Of course I was always talking about legal rights. But When people use the the term "God-Given right" in reference to the right to bare arms that is of course a legal right, not a "god-given right".... :teehee: “. . .defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. . .” - unnamed politician "The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die." - ricin mailer

I did not ignore it. I explained it. You ignored my explanation. Your claim was that the letter had a "strong political message" that was associated with right-wing politics. I challenged you to demonstrate a correlation between the letter's content and the right-wing platform. You failed to do this, because no member of any party has ever advocated what the letter advocates. I repeat... Have you read the letters? Can you cite a transcript of their content that backs your claim? "You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you." If you are even slightly familiar with the Republican platform They've crafted a political rhetoric to take their political agenda and force-feed it to American claiming God-given rights rather than rights granted by the government. They have basically brought Religion into politics when It should be completely seperate from governing states. Last year alone The GOP's platform mentions God 12 times unlike the Democratic platform mentioning God zero times. Also it is popularly know the GOP platform is very strong in support against gun control. here is a few example.... "...We offer our Republican vision of a free people using their God-given talents.", " ...God-given individual rights..." , "“. . .the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens. . .” , “. . .defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. . .” , “. . .We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including “Under God” in public schools. . .” You ignored my explanation totally. I never challeged you to explain anything about what was written in the letters, but you went off in a complete tangent about how politicians don't advocated shooting other politicians... Was I ever suggesting a politician who invoke religious beliefs won't ever win an election? no! :rolleyes: The wording of the constitution makes it very clear that it is not granting any rights. It recognizes and protects natural rights by limiting the government's power to infringe upon them. It makes heavy use of words like "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law". It does not tell you what you can do. Rather, it tells the government what it cannot do. Wasn't talking about the constitution in general.... sure the constitution recognizes and protects natural rights, But only the government grants you right to begin with...

No political party or politician in recent history has advocated shooting a politician, law enforcement officer, or any other civil citizen in the face. Describing this as being even remotely similar to "right-wing rhetoric" is offensive. Shooting people in the face is not a political statement. It is the complete opposite of political discourse. The fact that you read those words and think "Republican" says much about your closed-minded and dogmatic approach to political thought. You seem to be ingnoring the point that the GOP's platform mentions God 12 times in their rhetoric. You chellenged me to cite a transcript of the content to back my claim... They are free to do so... but invoke religious beliefs will be the downfall for any party when trying to win national elections... invoke religious beliefs only alienates everyone else who doesn't share the same beliefs.... And BTW there is no such thing as "god-given rights" If you don't think rights are given to you by the government you are only fooling yourself....

Can you cite a transcript of their content that backs your claim? "You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you." If you are even slightly familiar with the Republican platform They've crafted a political rhetoric to take their political agenda and force-feed it to American claiming God-given rights rather than rights granted by the government. They have basically brought Religion into politics when It should be completely seperate from governing states. Last year alone The GOP's platform mentions God 12 times unlike the Democratic platform mentioning God zero times. Also it is popularly know the GOP platform is very strong in support against gun control. here is a few example.... "...We offer our Republican vision of a free people using their God-given talents.", " ...God-given individual rights..." , "“. . .the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens. . .” , “. . .defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. . .” , “. . .We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including “Under God” in public schools. . .” None of these claims or methods are invocations of hatred, and the statistics that you cite are not indications of hatred. Even if Obama IS hated by a full 50% of the public or more it would not be unusual. That is your opinion. Just watch LaPierre here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5jAPzXJx50 Maybe we should ask other if they think LaPierre is spreading fear, hate, and paranoia since you feel he is not... To anyone else beside Troaches, do you think LaPierre is spreading fear, hate , and paranoia?

perhaps I wouldn't even have even suggested right-wing rhetoric had a part in the discussion if there wasn't strong political message in the ricin letters to begin with.... Are you seriously kidding? Just look at the things LaPierre says about Obama alone.... Calling Obama a "big fat Liar", Claming there is some sort of "conspiracy" where as Obama going to "take" away peoples guns.... Using the Presidents "children" in ads that show off his own "hypocrisy" about Obama needing Armed guards in the 1st place, etc.... Alone LaPierre's 2012 CPAC speech was driven with only hate, fear, and paranoia. If you don't believe this just imagine what people would think about if Obama was saying the same sort of things about LaPierre.... I am sure concidering what people already think about Obama without LaPierre influence is enough to go with. 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office. 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen. 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a “Racist who hates White people” — the description once adopted by Fox News’s Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist. A Winthrop poll from April, before the president released the detailed birth certificate, found 43 percent of S.C. Republicans and Republican leaners said the president was “probably” or “definitely” born in another country. About 45 percent said he was “definitely” or “probably” born in the United States. Now, that percentage has crept up to 53 percent.

Perhaps the greater leason to be learned is no matter if you think people are free to speak their mind "speculating" if something is true or not, people need to be more cautious when driving a political message with hate and fear to avoid any demonizing of those who hold opposing political opinions so there won't be any kind of persecution to begin with...

question is still irrelevant. Just out of curiosity, why was the original question irrelevant? Wouldn't you say it would be safe to assume she might not have targeted specifically people and groups surounding the gun control debate if she didn't think people would think of it as a legitimate threat?This of course is besides the fact we "now" know she was just trying to frame her husband...

oops double post....

Why did you cite something that is irrelevent? By itself it is irrelevent... you seem to be missing the bigger picture citing the "article" not the "survey" itself. The alone survey wasn't so much a lie, it was just grossly missleading..... You claim that this is the sole purpose of his rhetoric, so what is his motivation? What does LaPierre have to gain from spreading fear and hate? New members and sell more guns. That could be his motive too... You have stated before in this thread earlier he really represents "gun manufacturers" instead of gun owners, even when he publically speaks he "claims" to be speaking on behalf of "all gun owner across the nation".... I would argue that Obama's campaign lies, and his election based on those lies, has spread as much or more fear and hate among the public than anything LaPierre could ever say. Does the Iraqi public count as a part of the public? Do you think that the increased casualties in Iraq due to Obama's lies have perhaps spread some fear and hate? Don't you think drone strikes around the region that kill civilians are a cause of fear and hate? Do you think nothing of the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others who have been killed because Obama lied when he claimed to be opposed to militarism and in fact has behaved quite militantly? You can argue all you want about this.... But Did I ever suggest anywhere in this entire thread that Obama hasn't lied? Lets be realistic here... every president in history has never lead up to "all" their promisses.... Just because you don't like what a President is doing while they are in power does not make them a liar that is trying to strike fear and hate into the public mind.... What would really be the purpose of doing that, especially when they are already holding power? Speaking to on a "national" stage Obama is really trying to strike fear and hate in the Iraqi public? /sarcasm While we are at it lets just switch the focus off LaPierre and talk about Obama now? ****/more sarcasm****

Troached the survey question in itself alone is kind of irrelevant, beside the fact it is "misleading"... You remember me pointing out LaPierre on Foxnews "speculating" Obama was going to be taking away rifles, shotguns, and handguns? http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-obama-flip-flop-on-gun-control/ What Lapierre is doing whether or not you think it's a lie is dangerous when the sole purpose is to misslead the public with fear and hate "speculating" peoples guns are going to be taking away Just to get new members and sell more guns.... Sure, Obama might have not have lead up to his promiss trying to get the troops back but it is hardly rhetoric to spread fear and hate into the minds of the public...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/nra-lie-obama-gun-control-registry-survey

The example you link where the The SPLC condemned Corkin's attack on the FRC was a great example of accountability and responcibility. Despite if the SPLC claims on the FRC was false or not they made statements in light of the event that lead to Corkin's attack on the FRC. Maybe Lapierre should have made a statement as well just like the SPLC did, concidering all the hate and fear he has built within gun owners across the nation, where as the letters were specifically sent to people and organizations surrounding gun control legislation.... I still feel Lapierre should make a public statement about what has recently happened, since all miss-information about gun control legislation point back to the him and the NRA.... this is what I mean about accountability, if you can accept that.....

Where in this entire thread did I say anyone "should" be held "accountable" for others "actions"?

I did not bring it up. I was referring to your assessment to holding accountability to "actions"... here you remember writing this.... Remember you said this not me.... :rolleyes:

I did not realize that a score was being kept, but if this is the case I hardly feel like I am losing. Well you certainly are not winning anymore than you already have... If you have already won a debate and insist on the debate to continue you can only lose.... ;D I don't think anyone should ever be held accountable for the actions of another person. Then why even bring it up? :rolleyes: You seem to be forgetting she targeted Obama, Bloomberg, and a gun control group the mayor supports. These people and groups are surrounding the current gun control debate in america. Just filling in some peice for you where as it can be linked to someone like LaPierre or NRA gun advocates.....

Don't like winning a debate with so many losses? ;D Just remember you asked for it... Let the debate continue .... :dance: If you are suggesting someone else should be held accountable for "actions" she did, thats on you go ahead and start a narrative on that. Who do you think should be held accountable for her "actions" besides her? :rolleyes: Being held accountable for "actions" is different from being held accountable for what people "say".... Example: If someone screams "fire" in a crowded theater where as there is an actual fire that is happening, the person won't be held accountable for the actual fire unless they created it. But the person will be held accountable for causing panic and chaos that would most likely lead to people being hurt by trampling over others in the commotion to evacuate... The Blame is solely put on the woman who framed her husband and according to authorities she was influenced from the original Ricin mailer from a month ago. She was just a copycat. Also if you ask me, the narrative of the letters was obviously influenced from the false dangerous rhetoric that LaPierre has been spewing out the last few years. Where as this gave her the idea to target Obama,Bloomberg, and a gun control group the mayor supports to mislead in her actual motive which lead the focus on the recent gun control debate narrative... She used the message to mislead people into thinking some gun nut was the perpetrator. TRoaches, Isn't that so obvious now to you or not? :rolleyes: Please feel free to let us hear your thoughts now since you seem to be "speculating" there "must" be more to it... :psyduck:

Case closed end of topic! :teehee: or is it? (could be some giant NRA conspiracy) *** whistles the X-files theme song*** ;D TRoaches wins the debate by a "narrow victory".... Congrats to TRoaches!!! :dance:

Being atleast a responsible individual... your example of the SPLC condemned Corkin's attack on the FRC was a good example of acting responsible in light of that tragic event. My thoughts are someone who "claims" speaking on behalf of "all gun owners across the nation", reguardless if he is or not, should do the responsible thing and address the nation condemning this ricin mailer. Lapierre is the main source where almost all miss-information on gun control legislation is born. It would be a public service to the nation for anyone who has the power to influence in halting demestic terror over gun control... For a person who claims to be a reasonable person wanting a safer country, it's ironic he doesn't take this oppertunity to even try actual do something where he can actually make a difference rather than advocating to arm the country for public safty.... :armscrossed:

It was never my initial premise to begin with. The idea was to hold people "accountable" for what they say when it leads to people being harmed. You might think I was, but i was hardly strongly arguing for anyone to be "arrested" or "imprisoned". But some how the topic pushed in that dirrection over me trying to point out that freedom of speech is not unlimited...

Now wait just one second... Do you even remember you were the one who brought up " imprisonment" in this thread? If you get to retract any prior mention of imprisonment... I get to retract any prior mention of arrest... :teehee:

You are mistaken. Imprisonment is any form of detention against someone's will. Incarceration is long term imprisonment due to a conviction. You are confusing imprisonment with incarceration. Imprisonment Incarceration You stated that LaPierre should be arrested for his expression. You could retract that statement, but you instead are attempting to divert the discussion away from your advocacy of censorship under penalty of arrest using semantical arguments. Even your semantical arguments are incorrect. Find it Ironic you link to wikipedia for "Imprisonment" and "incarceration" but seem to ignore linking to "arrest" to some how justify I am completely misguided and mistakenly so wrong about this... An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation or prevention of crime and presenting (the arrestee) to a procedure as part of the criminal justice system. The term is Anglo-Norman in origin and is related to the French word arrêt, meaning "stop". Arrest, when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension of a person or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement. When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested - wikipedia No mention of Imprisonment or incarceration having to do with being arrested. Still don't see what would be so worng about taking a person into custody to answer questions for ongoing crimes or even for prevention of further criminal offences since the Ricin mailer is probably still at large. Again with the incorrect semantical argument. A Senator is a member of congress, commonly referred to as a congressman or congresswoman. Your description is of a Representative, who is a member of a specific house of congress. You are demonstrating a lack of even the most basic knowledge about how the US government is structured. Isn't is ironicly funny how you use "semantics" to justify your statement of how being arrested is the same things as Imprisonment....

The difference is semantically non-existent. They two terms do exactly equate with each other. Being arrested is a form of temporary imprisonment. Imprisonment does not mean "sentenced to prison". I am sorry to say this but I beleieve you are "incorrectly stating" this time.... Being arrested is not the same as being imprisoned. Imprisonment occurs only after you have been found guilty or plead guilty to a crime and have been sentenced to a term of incarceration. Huge difference between the two.... :rolleyes: Sorry I am not a very good researcher in your opinion. You seem to have had the tendency of telling me I am "incorrectly stating" something, continuely insinuating that i am some how always wrong about interpitations... Seemed fitting because the only way to stop you from "speculating" the way I see things was just to dirrectly copy and paste from wikipedia so we wouldn't have as many petty arguements over what something means.... :teehee: and speaking of Plagiarizing.... ----- adds foot notes .... straight from Wikipedia..... ----- thanks for pointing that out. Almost forgot to do that! :thumbsup: You should know who LaPierre is because he is at the root of all gun control miss-information.... Senator Rand Paul A Senator is not Quite the same thing as Congressman.... A Congressman represents a district within a state whereas the Senator is representative for the whole state. Besides Rand Paul is hardly even concidered a person who realistically represents a whole state in my opinion. ;D But for the sake of arguement good research. :thumbsup:

It is not a theory. It is precisely what you suggested in this post: If you ask me people who are political pundents that constantly keep repeating the false narrative generating this fear and hate that their guns are going to be taken away should make offical public statements in light of recent events leading to these dangerous letters. Would be nice if they could atleast bring to light that no one is going to come take their precious fire arms away. They should take their "personal responsibility" to address their public audience that what they have been preaching is not the truth. And if they persist they should be arrested for continuation of promoting false dangerous political rhetoric that has lead to domestic terror and harm to average american people. Freedom of speech should only be valid until it starts to hurt other people and infringe on other peoples freedoms... So what did you mean by that? Because it sure looks like you are advocating the arrest of people who say what LaPierre says. Would you like to clarify that? Arrested!?! :teehee: For starters being arrested hardly equates to being imprisoned... :rolleyes: I was suggesting "if" these letters persist, why shouldn't LaPierre be arrested when he made no official statement condemning these letters and while he keeps continuing to scare gun owners that someone is going to come to their house and take their guns away, while this whole incident is still under investigation? ...and if so, shouldn't he be a prime suspect if the ricin mailer is still at large? Acording to my own research LaPierre is the only person I could find throughout the past few days of research who has claimed(or should i say Speculated) that Obama is going to take away Rifles, shotguns, and handguns... You have stated before in this thread that "Plenty of other people say the same sorts of things" like people in congress, judges, local politicians, scholars, and artists. If so, where do you think they could have gotten this idea in their head from in the 1st place? and further more can you name just one congressman who you claim has said Obama is going to take away rifles, shotguns, and handguns? Because I could not find any Congressman the past few days, while doing research, who has ever been on the record saying such a thing.

Well notice, since I copy and pasted wikipedia article you don't seem to be trying to correct me about the original reason why 2nd amendment was put into the constitution or keep telling me I am incorrect... ;D Also.... You seem to have a tendency of ignoring a lot of my questions when I have been more than generous in giving in my explanations to your questions. Maybe you should re-read the entire thread and find where I asked you this specific question... Also at the same time, this should give you the opportunity to see if i ever even suggested he should be imprisoned too. :thumbsup: Then you can come back to this theory that you seem to think I have about LaPierre and imprisonment... :teehee: And if you want i would be happy to copy and paste the wikipedia article of first amendment in my next post at your request. :thumbsup:

Ok then let me try to correct myself since I am always so incorrectly stating everything.... :rolleyes: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France. A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens, or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "protects arms that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.