TRoaches Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 @colourwheel: At no point in that video does LaPierre use the words confiscate, grab, take, or any synonym of those words in reference to guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 5, 2013 Author Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) @colourwheel: At no point in that video does LaPierre use the words confiscate, grab, take, or any synonym of those words in reference to guns. 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 WALLACE: I want to move on to another subject. What do you make of the picture -- we'll put it on the screen -- that the White House released Saturday, of President Obama skeet shooting at Camp David? He says he respects hunting. 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. I mean -- WALLACE: He's not taking away shot guns. LAPIERRE: Have you looked -- have you looked at the Feinstein bill, that he is supporting? WALLACE: Well, that's not -- LAPIERRE: I mean, that's exactly what it does. I mean, I think what they'll do is they'll turn this universal check on the law- abiding into a universal registry of law-abiding people -- and law- abiding people don't want that. 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? Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) 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...So now the person whose rhetoric you want to target can be punished for the implied meaning of what they are saying? To recap, you support legal punishment, including imprisonment, as a possible punishment for someone who says something that could be interpreted to imply something that has the potential to distress another person enough that it causes them to do something dangerous. Does that sound about right? Following that line of thinking, let us pretend for a moment that you have convinced me that LaPierre is a dangerous loony and, as a result of your publicly expressed rhetoric, I decide to assassinate him to prevent him from spreading his dangerous rhetoric. If am arrested for this crime and claim to the authorities that you planted the idea in my brain that he is a danger to society then you should be held accountable, according to your own standard, and potentially imprisoned for implying that he is a dangerous loony who must be stopped at any cost. Would this be acceptable to you? Edited June 5, 2013 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 5, 2013 Author Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) 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... 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 -- To recap, you support legal punishment, including imprisonment, as a possible punishment for someone who says something that could be interpreted to imply something that has the potential to distress another person enough that it causes them to do something dangerous. Does that sound about right? 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. Following that line of thinking, let us pretend for a moment that you have convinced me that LaPierre is a dangerous loony and, as a result of your publicly expressed rhetoric, I decide to assassinate him to prevent him from spreading his dangerous rhetoric. If am arrested for this crime and claim to the authorities that you planted the idea in my brain that he is a danger to society then you should be held accountable, according to your own standard, and potentially imprisoned for implying that he is a dangerous loony who must be stopped at any cost. Would this be acceptable to you? 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... Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 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? 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. 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. Can you prove that anything that he said was a lie? He speculated about the political views and possible future actions of an elected official, and expressed his opinion about that official. Neither of these statements can be categorically defined as true or false: one is a speculative prediction yet to be proven true or false, and the other is an opinion. Would it be possible to prove that something that he said actually lead to a crime? No, it cannot. Now you are just being ridiculous here You are correct. The concept is ridiculous, both when it is applied to you and when it is applied to LaPierre. 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 argument leading to another person killing some. I did not claim that you slandered him, only that your negative opinion of him could influence someone to act violently against him according to your own theory presented in this thread. You said earlier that we should not only judge him by what he literally says but also by what he may be implying through his statements. Specifically, you said that he is afraid of gun confiscations when he never said that. You interpreted his words to mean confiscation, and are claiming that the ricin mailer did the same. If the same premise is applied to your statements about LaPierre then one could deduce that you are implying that he is expressing dangerous rhetoric, and that stopping the rhetoric via violence against him is a good idea. You did defame him by calling him a loony and making childish x-files references, but more so by associating his expression of opinion with the actions of the author of the ricin letter. Through this association, you have portrayed him as a danger to society. You are correct in saying that it does not justify violence against him and that such violence should not be blamed on you, but this also means that the ricin letters should not be blamed on LaPierre or anyone else who has been critical of government policy. 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... How can you be sure that your rhetoric is not a source of danger? I don't think it is, and I don't think you should withhold your opinion out of fear of influencing someone negatively. You, however, have been arguing that everyone should withhold controversial opinions about public figures to prevent the incitement of violence against them. If this is truly how you feel then you should not criticize LaPierre or anyone else for fear of inciting violence. If LaPierre's words are dangerous then so are yours. If you are arguing that LaPierre's words are dangerous enough to warrant punishment and censorship but your words are not then you are applying a different standard to him than you do to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 5, 2013 Author Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) 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? 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... Can you prove that anything that he said was a lie? I just did from the example above when Wallace interviewed him. :armscrossed: Would it be possible to prove that something that he said actually lead to a crime? No, it cannot. 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: The concept is ridiculous, both when it is applied to you and when it is applied to LaPierre. 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. Specifically, you said that he is afraid of gun confiscations when he never said that. You interpreted his words to mean confiscation, and are claiming that the ricin mailer did the same. 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. I did not claim that you slandered him, only that your negative opinion of him could influence someone to act violently against him according to your own theory presented in this thread. 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: You did defame him by calling him a loony and making childish x-files references, I am so sorry for calling him a loony, you are right that was totally uncalled for.... Please forgive me... :ohdear: How can you be sure that your rhetoric is not a source of danger? I don't think it is, and I don't think you should withhold your opinion out of fear of influencing someone negatively. You, however, have been arguing that everyone should withhold controversial opinions about public figures to prevent the incitement of violence against them. 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? Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Slander and libel is almost impossible to prove in a court of law in this time and age, especially concerning the press and elected officials. The fact is freedom of speech is a double edged sword. People have the right to say stupid and malicious things. Fox news is not going to sway public opinion and more than anything else. Many of those who watch that or that watch MSNBC are of a certain bent and will believe whatever each side feeds it. People are free to think and say as they please and their idiocy is indeed protected. Their use or misuse of facts is protected until it can be proven to present a clear and present danger to someone, is inciting speech (fighting words which is VERY hard to prove and for good reason) and if someone claims libel or slander then the definition of the dictionary and the definition of the courts is very different. There are many things that have to be proven in these cases. There is also a law covering public figures and officials as it pertains to this. It is explained here along with some other legal slander and libel explanations. The article is good as it gives the pros and cons of this. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander There is now member of Congress who is a member of the House Science Committee. He is quoted as follows: Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., ”All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet recently. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.” I mean WOW. So yeah...he can say that and I will defend his right to say that. I can say he doesn't need to be in the Science Committee for sure. Now I can sit here and talk about what an idiot he is without fear of government reprisal (and other people can call me names also.) That is the freedom of speech as it was intended to be. I will quote from Thomas Jefferson as I did in another thread,“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it" In other words those who wish to say stupid things can and we should not dissolve our freedoms to prevent this. We should instead, show reason, educate people and offer forth correct facts and information (or our side of the story.) Having laws to force folks to recant or apologize for things, even if they can be shown to be false, will solve nothing. Political rhetoric and pure lies on the part of people and the media have gone back through the ages. It was widely used during the Revolutionary War, it was used in early presidential elections (read about Adams vs Jackson.) Political rhetoric, even if I said I wished politician A to be dead...is protected. Unless I incite and give plans it is very hard to prove. Look at the KKK in the United States and some of the things they say. Still it is not often considered inciting speech or even hate speech by the courts. Yeah sometimes when we listen to this or see someone act out like the ricen letters, we immediately want to pull things in. I asked the same type questions about the Boston Bombings, how people often want and seem willing to let go personal freedoms for greater protections. The problem is those laws go all ways and what you think is perfectly fine speech on a subject, someone may not someday and be willing to take your rights away or hold you accountable. We must be vigilant, we must educate and we must pay attention and participate in government. This is the only protection from these things. This is what can make things better and make people more able to stand against simple rhetoric. Some people can never be protected against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizon72 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 A video and two different opinions, I'm shocked. Well, not really, actually, not at all. I've noticed with politics people have a tendency to judge right away based on a person's political leaning, and the person speaking. You can find videos of people being interviewed during the past couple of elections, and people based their answers about the person, not content. For example, during the 2008 election people were asked what they thought of Obama picking Sara Palin as his VP. Most only heard Obama and based their answer on if they were democrat or republican, not who the VP candidate was. I'm seeing that same reaction here with the videos and other debates. Two different sides are seeing the comment differently. The biggest problem is nether side is wrong, but nor are they right. Legally I know it would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. However, while I am for some gun laws, the problem I have is government abusing its power. Making a list isn't such a good idea (that's working so well for the IRS right now). I don't trust the government enough when they say let's do A, then its B, and before you know it, we've gotten to Z, and the people are wondering how we allowed them so much power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juderodney Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Okay, Color. You want to hold people's rhetoric responsible? How about we investigate the environmentalist movement for this hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Communications_headquarters_hostage_crisis Here's the manifesto he wrote just for that occasion. http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/james_j_lee_manifesto_discovery_gunman/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 5, 2013 Author Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Okay, Color. You want to hold people's rhetoric responsible? How about we investigate the environmentalist movement for this hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Communications_headquarters_hostage_crisis Here's the manifesto he wrote just for that occasion. http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/james_j_lee_manifesto_discovery_gunman/ 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: Edited June 5, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now