When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[colourwheel]

Recently two letters were sent to Obama and Bloomberg that were laced with Ricin. Ricin is a highly toxic, naturally occurring carbohydrate-binding protein of the type known as lectins. in one letter was written this...

 

 

 

"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."

 

My thought is Radical Right wing rhetoric is to blame for this persons extreme to commit domestic terror and making threats to end the lives of Obama and bloomberg.

 

On the other hand no politicitan has ever stated they are ever going to take peoples guns away other than people like Wayne Lapierre "claiming" the government is going to.

 

Besides the lack of intelligence the person has to have to be thinking any letter sent to any public official will ever reach them without being screened 1st is beyond me.

 

But the most laughable thing in this letter is this line... "The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die." As if claiming the constitution was written by God himself... :rolleyes:

 

The point i am trying to make is should people be held accountable for false political rhetoric which ultimately leads to crazy people doing dangerous things like the person who sent these letters off?

[Marxist ßastard]

God-given right

really it was given to us by a bunch of Reagan- and Bush II-era activist judges

but you know, same diff

Edited June 1, 2013 by Marxist ßastard

[colourwheel]

Well the ironic thing is despite what anyone thinks "if" congress and the senate decide to abolish the 2nd amendment then the president signs off on it they could legally amend it where no one could have the right to bare arms despite whos god they think wrote the constitution...

 

Really when you think back why the 2nd amendment was written for was to protect people from a tyrannical government. Don't you think no matter how well armed you prepare your self with that it won't make the slightest difference in this age.

 

You could arm yourself with over a billion rounds of ammo and have a huge arsenal of weapons from signl shot pistols to rocket launchers.... and what will the government have...? everything else..... what gives when you have a person with an AK47 fighting against a government nuclear submarine? :rolleyes:

 

The 2nd amendment is outdated.... sure there are ways to fight a tyrannical government if needed, but to use fire arms is unrealistic these days in my opinion.

Edited June 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[Lisnpuppy]

Lets not get into another gun control debate please. I don't think that was your original point of your debate Colour?

 

Also to amend the Constitution requires another amendment to be passed which has to be passed not only by 2/3 of the United States Senate and House of Representatives but 3/4ths of the States Congress also. The President has no role in ratifying a Constitutional Amendment.

 

Not even close to as easy to do as you seem to think. :)

[colourwheel]

 

Also to amend the Constitution requires another amendment to be passed which has to be passed not only by 2/3 of the United States Senate and House of Representatives but 3/4ths of the States Congress also. The President has no role in ratifying a Constitutional Amendment.

 

Not even close to as easy to do as you seem to think. :smile:

 

I am sorry, I stand corrected... 2/3 of the United States Senate and House of Representatives and 3/4ths of the States Congress. Was never claiming it to be easy, yet it can be done.

Edited June 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[Tidus44]

The thought of holding someone responsible for their rhetoric, which may have motivated someone to do something unlawful is a nice thought, but it would be quite difficult to accomplish I would think. Especially where the circumstances involve an individual who has obvious mental health issues. I would hazard to guess that the rhetoric was not intended to motivate someone to become sufficiently violent they attempt to kill someone (however feeble the attempt) or threaten to kill others. Even if the original rhetoric could be traced to a specific individual their intent was more likely to motivate political action, not violence.

The situation is somewhat paradoxical in that LaPierre has also suggested that registering the type of people who may obtain guns, but not specifically the guns, is a better system of gun control in order to eliminate those who may be compelled to act violently and use a gun for an illegal activity. I would think this individual probably falls within LaPierre's concept of gun control.

 

I see the situation as one that is full of rhetoric anyway - from both sides of the issue. I am amazed by how many discussions or excuse for some action point to the constitution and Bill of Rights as somehow the final and absolute answer to an issue. The idea that such things are hard and fast or absolute or somehow so obvious as to be indisputable is both amusing and sad.

[bben46]

Political rhetoric had nothing to do with this one - this guy seems to be a candidate for a tin foil hat who would go out of his way to find something to misinterpret.

 

Based on the tone of that letter, that particular individual has shown that they are not mentally competent to wander around without supervision. (How and where did they get access to Ricin?) The FBI will find them and remove them from society for quite a while - hopefully they may even get some help for their condition. (Is there any help for unreasoning hate?) But knowing the way the US penal system works, that is highly unlikely.

[colourwheel]

Political rhetoric had nothing to do with this one - this guy seems to be a candidate for a tin foil hat who would go out of his way to find something to misinterpret.

 

Based on the tone of that letter, that particular individual has shown that they are not mentally competent to wander around without supervision.

 

As much as I agree this particular person should be locked up for what he has done when the authorities find him. But I do believe political rhetoric has a lot to do with what the person has written.

 

It is almost like the person was listening to too many ted nugent hate speeches. Also the scary thing about this is there are a lot of people who might not go to the extreme of sending toxic letters around to public officials but who actually believe strongly that the government is going to show up at their houses and take their fire-arms away.

[rizon72]

IMO, far left rhetoric is just as damaging as far right. To include only one side is being short-sighted.

[colourwheel]

IMO, far left rhetoric is just as damaging as far right. To include only one side is being short-sighted.

 

Would be interesting to see an example of far left rhetoric that is just as damaging as far right. As much as i can agree there are crazy people on either side of the political spectrum, I would hardly concided them equally dangerous when people are sending letters laced with toxins threatening to kill people who show up at their door on the far right....

Edited June 3, 2013 by colourwheel