colourwheel

Ok lets play pretend... :thumbsup: Remember... The government also has nuclear arms and drones, who cares about automatic rifles... :P Since we are pretending now... I am a tyrannical government... and you are the nations rebelion.... .... you start shooting your automatic rifles at me.... I take 1% damage! .... I fire one nuclear missile at you.... you take 95% damage and loose a turn.... .... I use drones to get rid of what is left of the rebelion.... you take 5% damage and die! Rebelion crushed!!!! I WIN!!!! ;D Yay me! :dance: Yeah, and let's kill all our citizens at once! Since, you know we don't need them to do most if not all the work required to run a proper country. =D While we are at it, let's destroy the landscape with nukes! Even better =D /sarcasm A government that kills its own citizens is a government doomed to fall. This scenario is both pointless and ridiculous. The Right to Bare Arms was to protect the American people from any possible threat instead of relying just on the government. But you see my point? No matter how well armed the people are, in our country, every citizen could have an arsenal of fire arms and the government would have everything else.... Even drones alone could crush a rebelion in a matter of weeks! Sadly fire arms in this day and age is unrealistic to fight off a tyrannical government in this country...

Absurd!?! :teehee: Did I ever say new legislation won't effect existing constitutional rights? no! :rolleyes: Yes, you did. Seriously, its right there. I quoted it again to save you the trouble of scrolling back. You say that it will "not even affect" that existing constitutional right. Now you are just totally taking my words out of context... i said "you can have gun control laws made that will not even effect the right to bare arms." Why is it so hard for you to understand new gun control legislation is possible without touching "the right to bare arms"? Say a new law is made banning a new gun that was introduced into the fire arms family because it's destructive power would level a town. Does that still mean you don't have the right to bare arms anymore? Did this new gun control legislation change the 2nd amendment or take away any existing rights? There is no mention of government intrusion, criminals, foreign invaders, wild animals, aliens, or whatever in the amendment either. I was simply stating why it was written for in the 1st place. :rolleyes: The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. They contain a list of individual "rights" and "liberties", like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. They are "rights" that all citizens have and they cannot be taken away by the government. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of government. It protects two kinds of rights: rights of the individual, like freedom of speech, and rights of persons accused of crimes, like the right to trial by jury.... I am not looking backwards I am looking more forward than you know... :teehee: Ok lets play pretend... :thumbsup: Remember... The government also has nuclear arms and drones, who cares about automatic rifles... :P Since we are pretending now... I am a tyrannical government... and you are the nations rebelion.... .... you start shooting your automatic rifles at me.... I take 1% damage! .... I fire one nuclear missile at you.... you take 95% damage and loose a turn.... .... I use drones to get rid of what is left of the rebelion.... you take 5% damage and die! Rebelion crushed!!!! I WIN!!!! ;D Yay me! :dance:

This is an absurd statement. It is not possible to pass a law that legislates something without affecting it. Absurd!?! :teehee: Did I ever say new legislation won't effect existing constitutional rights? no! :rolleyes: The second amendment does not grant the right to bear arms. It prohibits the government from infringing upon that right through legislation. It is a subtle but significant difference. It is obvious that you have not read it, or did not pay attention what it said. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd amendment, which provides the right to bear arms, was written to protect the people against their own government when it becomes tyrannical. When a government move towards complete control, our fore fathers want us to be able to rebel, and over throw a tyrannical government. The only way at the time this could be possible, is if the general public was armed. It is obvious that you have not read it, or did you not pay attention to what it said? Now it can be debated what infringed actually means in The 2nd amendment but not all rights are unlimited reguardless... for example banning a fully automatic fire arms does not infringe on the right to bare arms when you are still allowed to have the right to bare arms just not fully automatic fire arms. :thumbsup: We should concider our selves lucky our fore fathers didn't use the word "muskets" in place of "Arms" in the constitution... ;D Isn't it illegal to go to peoples homes and take away thier guns? Last time I checked that is unlawful without probable cause. Someone claiming someone is going to do something unlawful isn't that accusing them of doing something illegal? Because they are just so precious to me... :teehee:

Please explain what the difference is. Well for starters Gun control Legislation and the 2nd amendment are two seperate things. :rolleyes: you can have gun control laws made that will not even effect the right to bare arms. the constitution is a body of fundamental "principles" where as the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bare arms our rights are not indefinitely unlimited to this right. We have other laws made restricting and limiting what arms are allowed and limitations on how we can bare them. For example you might have the right to bare arms but unless you have a licence to carry a concealed weapon you will be arrested if you have a weapon on you that is concealed. Just because you have the right to bare arms we have other laws made over time to reinforce public safety and the well being of the nation. The right to bare arms doesn't give us the right to bare "every" fire arm. Laws have been made where as it is illegal to own fully automatic fire arms. When you look at the 1st amendment just because we have the freedom of speech this right is not unlimited either. LaPierre is not the spokesperson for gun owners across the nation. He is a spokesperson for a gun rights group. Not all gun owners belong to this group, and not all gun owners agree with his politics. It is not fair to lump all gun owners together as a single hive-mind entity. He does not represent all of them, and has never claimed to. When LaPierre publically speaks he claims to be speaking for "all gun owners across the nation". whether or not he really is he should be held accountable when claiming this when he speaks. This means that you must recognize that LaPierre could possibly be correct in his assessment. If you recognize that it is not possible to disprove his statements then you must recognize that they could possibly be true. This means that you must recognize that LaPierre could possibly be incorrect in his assessment too. If it can't be proved or disproved he should be a little bit more cautious about what he is talking about. Just like if I claim someone is "pedifile" who is going to be coming after everyones "precious" children soon, I can't prove or disprove this. If you recognize that it is not possible to disprove this statement then you must recognize that it could possibly be true as well? Does this give me the right to besmirch someone based on my own "speculation" to spread fear and hate in the minds of others claiming someone is coming after their "precious" children soon when i have no proof? At what point in this entire thread did I ever say "LaPierre should be imprisoned"? Plenty of other people say the same sorts of things like people in congress, or work as judges, or are local politicians, or scholars, or artists? Ok just name one congressman who been preaching Obama is going to come and take your guns away and destroy the 2nd amendment... He is a national public speaker. Anyone on the spot light stage of politics who says something enough times despite if it's true or not statistically have the power to persuade in believing. The things he has been preaching about echos from this persons ricin laced letter message. If you don't believe LaPierre had a strong influence in the message found in these letters then what do you believe was the motivate to state what this person wrote inside these letters? Where could this person have possibly gotten the idea someone is going to come and take away their "precious" fire arms?

Absolutely not. I think everyone should be free to express their beliefs, no matter how strange or controversial they are, without fear. I was going to say Absolutely not too. :thumbsup: but not exactly for the same reasons.... SPLC claim is not quite slanderous in reguards to the label they put on the FRC. Not hard at all because he has been pushing for gun control legislation. :rolleyes: But... Gun control Legislation is a far cry from destroying the 2nd amendment and taking away peoples Rifles, shotguns, and handguns which LaPierre has been on the record "speculating".... I mean don't you think it's a little dangerous to invoke fear and hate and parania in the minds of people who own guns when you are the spokes person for gun owners across the nation? Don't you even think he might be just a tiny bit accountable for hyping up "spectulation" or not when repeatively using rhetoric like these examples below? "it's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the second amendment in our country" - LaPierre "Well, I make the same thing during the campaign, when he said to people I will not take away your rifle, shotgun, handgun. They leafletted the country with flyers like this, Obama is not going to take your gun, Obama is going to protect gun rights. And, now, he's trying to take away all three." - LaPierre I'll agree with you it is not possible to prove or disprove anything since Obama's term isn't up yet. "Speculation" or not don't you think he has a responcibility and needs to clear the record publically in light of recent events being the spokes person for gun owners across the nation when dangerous people are being brainwashed by his "Speculation" leading to Ricin laced letters being mailed to public officials echoing his "speculation" ?

I wasn't "blaming" anyone for anything. All i was saying is people should be held accountable for false political rhetoric especially when you are a public speaker and in light of the recent event of these toxic letters floating around. If no one has been caught and it can be pointed out where the motivation could have originated why not somehow hold them accountable. At least make a public statement condemning the person sending around these letters... Agian... how are you so certain on this when it's an ongoing investigation? The FRC has been known as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people... As the SPLC made clear at the time and in hundreds of subsequent statements and press interviews, They criticize the FRC for claiming, that pedophilia is “a homosexual problem” (this is not true), An FRC official has said he wanted to “export homosexuals from the United States.” The same official advocated the criminalizing of homosexuality. You tell me, do you really think the SPLC should retract their position regarding The FRC? According to the few webpages i have quickly researched on this SPLC claims to the FRC being an anti-gay organization is accurate. If LaPierre issued a statement condemning the ricin letters, but did not retract his position regarding the executive gun control agenda he should show proof without a doubt Obama is going to come and take your rifles, shotguns, and handguns away as well as completely destroy the 2nd amendment when he claims this to be the truth.... Otherwise he should be in the spot light as a major suspects for these letters...

If you ask me... Despite if the organization he targeted was based on misleading info or the truth, a joint statement was issued by 25 LGBT groups condemning Corkins' action. I think they were responcible enough to come forward and set the record straight. When pointing to accountablity where the motive might have been set in motion leading to Corkin actually executing this horrible thing. Concidering in light of recent events surrounding these ricin laced letters, maybe LaPierre as the spokes person for gun owners around the nation should take the "personal responcibility" and condemn this persons action based on the rhetoric found in the letters and set the record straight that no one is going to come to anyones home and take away their precious fire arms. Since no one has been officially held acountable for these letters or caught and it's very possible they could countinue to be sent out leading to the average american coming into contact with this toxin laced on these dangerous letters. LaPierre is not stupid. I am sure he is up to date with current events and knowing that the rhetoric found in the letters echos from almost every Slanderous speech he has made about Obama and gun control in the past two years. Unless he is dirrectly connected to these dangerous letters he really should make a public statement regaurding them...

He has never called for the assassination of anyone. Yet... Lapierre has stated in many of his speechs advocating the need to get rid of Obama in office or he will destroy the 2nd amendment. Referring to their right to bare arms as a "God-given right"? Isn't a Fire Arm a weapon with the sole purpose to inflict physical injury? Inflicting physical injury is kinda violent I would think. Juderodney let me ask you this... What do you think motivated this person to send out these ricin laced letters to public officals? Where could this person possibly have gotten the idea someone is going to come to their house and take their precious fire arms away? I have asked this question several times now in this thread yet no one has even tried to post an opinion on it.

And how are you so certain on this? How do you know that "Radical Right wing rhetoric is to blame" when it's an ongoing investigation? Did I say it is a mater of "fact" the rhetoric is to blame? no! I was stating my "thought" on the situation. Doing more research during the course of the Thread I have found it extremely compleling how the persons written message in the letters echos LaPierre's false rhetoric in almost every speech that has been publiclly put on the record. The use of "God-given right" has been a repeated phrase used over and over again by the Radical Right wing in the political spectrum in the recent years. Never heard this phase used over and over again in any left wing rhetoric. When the right wing stops using the claim pointing to "God" in their narrative maybe it could be argued the message was more ambiguous when pointing to it's political motive. but going back to my original question... How do you know the answer is "no" when it's an ongoing investigation?

I can't argue with that. I completely agree with you on this, with the exception where speech leads to infringe on other peoples freedoms and/or people being harmed. And how are you so certain on this? how do you know the answer is "no" when it's an ongoing investigation?

Be my guest start persecuting away with your examples.... :yes: After all it is The Debates Forum. Concidering the backlash I got form even both sides of the political spectum for opening the debate up, I will wish you luck on this. :thumbsup:

He is speculating about the political agenda of a publicly elected official. Evidence is not required to support speculation or opinion. There is nothing slanderous about what he said. You seem confused about what slander really means. He is not speculating. Straight up in his interview with Wallace he said Obama is trying to take away "all three" referencing to rifles, shotguns, and handguns when there is no truth to this... slanderous - calumniatory: (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign. slander -The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. -Make false and damaging statements about (someone). I think you seem confused about what slander really means too... I just did from the example above when Wallace interviewed him. :armscrossed: Actually it can. The Ricin laced letters being sent around the nation to public officals is still under investigation. Nothing can be ruled out during an ongoing investigation. :whistling: If that is what you think I will just have to disagree with you on this one. Mainly because I am hardly a public figure with power to politically influence millions of americans where as LaPierre is. I didn't "specifically" say anything other than him possibly being the sorce of the motive for this person who sent off these toxic letters. The ricin mailer didn't even use the word "confiscation" in the letters. Seriously, opinion? Well if my Opinion on him leads to endangering his life then I will be sure to stop when it is pointed out to me. :thumbsup: I am so sorry for calling him a loony, you are right that was totally uncalled for.... Please forgive me... :ohdear: Again how can you keep saying it's an opinion when i linked a video on this thread where he states on record Obama is trying to take away rifles, shotguns, and handguns when the truth is he is not. If you are so convinced LaPierre had no influence to the message in these letters then what do you think motivated the person to write the inscribed text inside the letters?

So now the person whose rhetoric you want to target can be punished for the implied meaning of what they are saying? Did you even watch the Fox new video? LaPierre is basically saying Obama is trying to take away rifles, shotguns, and handguns. When he has no evidence or proof just simply stating he doesn't trust the guy... :rolleyes: So does that really give LaPierre the right to repeatively Slander a person just because he doesn't trust him? LAPIERRE said: Well, I make the same thing during the campaign, when he said to people I will not take away your rifle, shotgun, handgun. They leafletted the country with flyers like this, Obama is not going to take your gun, Obama is going to protect gun rights. And, now, he's trying to take away all three. I mean -- No, I am saying people should be held accountable and be a little bit more responsible at the least by stopping their false political rhetoric when it can be pointed out as possibly the leading cause and/or motivation to people doing dangerous things. But... if people persist after being pointed out that what they are preaching is totally false, why shouldn't there be legal punishment or imprisonment when normal american people are being harmed over it? No one has a right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person anyways. Now you are just being ridiculous here ;D But for the sake of arguement I would hold myself accountable. ;D But what proof would you have to claim me using slander? was I using lies to damage or defame the reputation of this person? Calling someone a name like "loony" hardly is enough to go on to make a convincing arguement leading to another person killing some. But seriously if my rhetoric either being true or false is pointed out as possibly being the sorce of endangering peoples lives I would be happy to stop...

You honestly don't think LaPierre saying "it's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the second amendment in our country" is enough? He repeatively uses fear and hate saying "as a fact if Obama is re-elected peoples freedoms will be taken away." ***wonders what freedoms he is talking about as the spoke person for the NRA... could it be code for pizza?*** :rolleyes: A person doesn't need to specificly use words like confiscate, grab, take, or any synonym of those words in reference to guns to get a narrative across... But if you really want to listen to this loonie some more... here is him on Fox news... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpOub4OoxQQ LaPierre shouldn't be the spokes person of the NRA when his mind is filled with paranoid conspiracies. It's as if he watched too many X-files episodes on TV in the 90's (He just wants to believe). Someone this paranoid shouldn't be the voice for gun owners across the nation... Don't you think it's scary that the spokes person for the NRA is provoking fear, hate, and paranoia to millions of american gun owners? Paranoia and guns is not a good mix in my opinion.... Wouldn't you agree if political rhetoric is repeated enough in the minds of the public despite if it's the truth or not that eventually people will start to believe as fact? LaPierre's False rhetoric is at the root of this Hate and fear of people believing Obama is going to take everyones guns away... Unless you can enlighten me otherwise... Try to convience me he is not... What do you think motivated this person to send out these ricin laced letters to public officals?

You never asked me several times but here you go... Wayne Lapierre! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5jAPzXJx50

Your example you linked of confication is hardly justified as a national wide spread incident. The cities around New Orleans at that time was under a state of emergancy. :rolleyes: Even tho local police, U.S. Army, National Guard soldiers, and Deputy U.S. Marshals did what they did and took peoples fire arms away I am sure they thought they legally could. It was only recently before that time HB 760 was signed into law in 2006. when your example happened less than two years later during a national disaster. I doubt back then many even knew that before 2006 it was legal for authorities to take away your fire arms during a state of emergancy.... Also this was during bush administration. Can't blame Obama for this one. :psyduck: A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends a few normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alert citizens to change their normal behaviors, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural or man made disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international or internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law. Also the Vice President stating publicly that the President may enact gun control through executive order hardly is a threat to people coming to your home and taking the precious fire arms away ... The president doesn't have much power in policy making when it comes to Executive order... The most extreme thing he did was appointing new dirrector for the ATF... Hardly a huge threat if you ask me.... And The president has that right no matter who is in power. You keep leaving out the part about that this false narrative has lead to people being harmed and this is reguardless if I consider their beliefs to be false... As I said before if it is harming others it should stop... not because I may believe it's false. When freedom of speech leads to other being harmed why should they have the right to persist? "Freedom of speech should only be valid until it starts to hurt other people and/or infringe on other peoples freedoms... "

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... Okay, I am going against my better judgement and stepping in here. Every (wo)man is responsible for her/his actions. The News is slanted (There isn't a news station that ISN'T IMO) but it is not their fault this guy decides to poison some letters and mail them. Saying it is means just because I heard my girlfriend cheated on me, I dump her without investigating it. (Which, sadly, I guess that does happen often) Point is, don't blame the news. Blame the man who refused to do research and decided to take a life on the CHANCE that it may happen. Or, another way to look at it, if it is the news fault that the man sent the letters, it is Obama's fault for starting such a controversy that gave more than enough ammunition to any journalist. If he hadn't mentioned getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, then the news wouldn't have reported it, and the guy wouldn't have sent letters. **EDIT** Feel free to add to the chain of blame. I'm sure it can be somehow extended. Obama has made it clear in the past on the record. No one is not going to come to their home take away anyones fire arms... (public statement on his part.) :ohdear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrxUBMlCyiE&feature=player_embedded

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...

Who do you propose should have the power to determine what is true and what is false, and what speech should be directly linked to actions by someone unrelated to the speaker? In what way should a person be held accountable for their speech? Should they be punished, and if so what should the punishment be? It's not a question of who should determine what is true and what is false. The thing i am trying to stress is people need to stop the false political rhetoric that is indirrectly leading to people being harmed. Political pundents who use false political rhetoric that is generating such fear and hate leading to nut jobs doing dangerous things has to stop. This isn't just to pick on the right wing so much as to start holding anyone accountable either on the right or the left which lead to people being harmed based on false rhetoric. Should they be punished? I would want them to be atleast held accountable and atleast make public statements to correct themselves.

No! I did read all your posts. just doesn't seem relevant to comment about since it would completely derail the topic more than it already has. If you want to start your own topic about which Radical extreme political group has been historically more dangerous go right ahead. But for this thread if you can think of any recent false dangerous political rhetoric that you can point to that you think has lead to demestic terror maybe I will have something more to say about it. Claiming that the president's mail screener is an "average american" or a "postal worker" is like saying that the president's chauffeur is an "average limo driver". That person may indeed work for the post office, but the inherent risk involved in that job leads me to believe they should be considered somewhat above average. It is their job to absorb this type of threat, and they are probably honored to do so in service to their country, just like a secret service agent who unflinchingly steps in front of a bullet. It may be a bit less dramatic, but that doesn't make it less important. They have a dangerous and important job, and they did it well. To invoke sympathy for them as a reason to begin censoring speech is an insult to their sacrifice. It is not a common hazard, it is a rare and extraordinary one that necessitates their profession. These letters were handled by more than just people who screen mail. The person who did this didn't just drop them off dirrectly to their offices. These letters were handled and mixed with other peoples mail. Who knows unofficially how many people came into contact with the toxin before they even reached the screening process.... Handling Toxic laced letters shouldn't be a common hazard anyone should have to deal with even if it's the president's chauffeur.

There is a difference between sharing a political opinion, or a personal opinion in the public view, and shouting at the top of your lungs to create a public disturbance, or screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater. For example telling someone to **** off isn't a crime, but pursuing someone to repeatedly harrass them verbally is. If lying to the public were to be illegal, every single politician that was ever elected to power in America, would be subject for impeachment. The same goes for the media. The government has admitted in the past it uses false information to sway public opinion in favor of one thing or another. Its called psyops, and its a real tactic used by the military and intellgence community on our own citizens. Its each individual's personal responsibility to discern truth from lies. If they don't know the differnece, then it sounds like a personal problem to me. Oh so now there is a big "IF" in freedom of speech.... I guess i will just agree with you now. ;D

Weather Underground Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional Ilich Ramírez Sánchez aka Carlos the Jackal Red Army Faction Black Liberation Army Japanese Red Army These are just a few of the more notable examples of far-left extremists, but there are many more. Each one carried out attacks that did far more damage to civil society, and presented far more danger to society as a whole, than a few poisoned letters ever could. They shot and bombed civilians in accordance with the far left rhetoric that they believed in. Umm this is 2013 not 1999. Some of these groups haven't even existed for over 2 decades... :rolleyes: What ever far left rhetoric you believe is far more damaging was left in the mist of the popularity of the x-files tv show.... *whistles the x-files theme song* "I want to believe" You say this like 2 decades is an exceedingly long amount of time. Because two decades is a long amount of time... ;D The letters never even made it to the people who they were intended for... you don't think these people have their mail screened 1st? The people who ended up getting harmed were average american people just handling the mail... postal workers and office people. Handling Toxic laced letters shouldn't be a common hazard for postal workers and office personnel to be pinned as dangers associated with the job.

Libel and Slander Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization. Clear and Present Danger Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action. Ussually politicians who lie endup paying at the cost of their own political career. Just because you lie doesn't mean you are going to jail but if lies lead to people getting harmed then they should be held accountable for it. You look at Michael bachman who representing Minnesota's 6th congressional district. She did absolutely nothing for her district and has one of the worst records for a congressman in office with only one bill to show for in her entire political career because she tried to repeal obama care like i think 37 times.... Michael bachman thankfully is leaving congress now but her leaving political office will probably put so many fact checkers out of a job. lol Now Bachman is probably going to become just another talking head and get paid millions to bring more hate and fear in the minds of the conservative base. Can't tell you how many times i've her her say how Obama care is going to destroy lives and kill people. lol As much as i will agree with you the left probably has similar issues with free speech. Currently the left doesn't have to debate or look at ways to silence the other side because the right is constantly being called out for their own misleading rhetoric and lies. It would seem there is no reason to silence those who disagree with them because they are too busy trying to back talk thier own false rhetoric most of the time. Most of the politicians who are in office who are misleading the public tend to only care about their own political career and will do anything to stay in power even if it means to purposely disrupt government progress and let the nation suffer.

Weather Underground Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional Ilich Ramírez Sánchez aka Carlos the Jackal Red Army Faction Black Liberation Army Japanese Red Army These are just a few of the more notable examples of far-left extremists, but there are many more. Each one carried out attacks that did far more damage to civil society, and presented far more danger to society as a whole, than a few poisoned letters ever could. They shot and bombed civilians in accordance with the far left rhetoric that they believed in. Umm this is 2013 not 1999. Some of these groups haven't even existed for over 2 decades... :rolleyes: What ever far left rhetoric you believe is far more damaging was left in the mist of the popularity of the x-files tv show.... *whistles the x-files theme song* "I want to believe" Besides the actual person who sent those letters off, every political pundent should stop lying about Obama and his socialist army is going to show up at your door and take away your guns when it is leading to average people getting harmed from these toxic laced letters. Again... no it does not... ;D http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm I'll just repeat what Tidus44 said: "A lie that causes harm (and "harm" is fairly broad in definition) to others is not protected by the 1st Amendment." If you really don't believe this then go on with life lying and misleading everyone and see how far in this country you will get, if you don't eventually endup in jail ... :rolleyes:

I would have to disagree with you. Just because a person has the freedom to speak their mind still doesn't mean that they can't be held accountable for what they say no matter what. A person can't go around making bomb threats or screaming fire in a crowded public place. A person can't make threats to assassinate the president. Even if you walk into a public place and start swearing at the top of your lungs for hours most likely the 1st amendment isn't going to protect you from getting kick out of the place. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to lie and mislead people, publicly or otherwise. The point where something start to infringe on other peoples freedoms or lead to infringment of other peoples freedoms is where this line starts to be drawn. Freedom isn't unlimited. This is going back to what Tidus44 said earlier in the thread: