When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[saadus]

What this debate comes down to his, are people held accountable for their own actions or are we all reacting out of a long chain of actions and reactions.

 

If we go for the first one, things are simple. Every man and woman is responsible for his or her own actions.

 

Go for the second one, I can go out and shoot 12 different people and I can find 5 different people to blame for putting me in such a psychotic mood.

 

Point is, we all have something called a BRAIN! It's time a few people used it and realize that everyone is responsible for their own actions and there are consequences.

 

Words is nothing but wasted air. The guy's mail was toxic. See the difference? If not let me explain to you.

 

Obama declares intentions to get rid of Second Amendment.

 

Guy on news says "Obama will take your gun."

 

Guy watching news goes "Oh GOD! Not my guns! Well, I better show them!" And in a brave act of stupidity, sent poison mail, endangering his kids and his wife.

 

Colourwheel, you are merely blaming the guy in the middle. And last time I checked, blaming someone for someone else's actions is just plain wrong.

 

It was the guy who was watching the news who sent the letters, not the news media, and not Obama, it was the guy watching television.

[TRoaches]

The SPLC condemned Corkin's attack, but they did not retract their position on the FRC. Does this mean that if LaPierre issued a statement condemning the ricin letters, but did not retract his position regarding the executive gun control agenda, that you would also consider him absolved of guilt with regards to the ricin? If not, why?

[colourwheel]

 

Colourwheel, you are merely blaming the guy in the middle. And last time I checked, blaming someone for someone else's actions is just plain wrong.

 

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...

 

 

It was the guy who was watching the news who sent the letters, not the news media, and not Obama, it was the guy watching television.

 

Agian... how are you so certain on this when it's an ongoing investigation?

 

The SPLC condemned Corkin's attack, but they did not retract their position on the FRC. Does this mean that if LaPierre issued a statement condemning the ricin letters, but did not retract his position regarding the executive gun control agenda, that you would also consider him absolved of guilt with regards to the ricin? If not, why?

 

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...

Edited June 6, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

You tell me, do you really think the SPLC should retract their position regarding The FRC?

 

Absolutely not. I think everyone should be free to express their beliefs, no matter how strange or controversial they are, without fear. At no point in this discussion have I advocated that anyone retract or suppress their beliefs. I would never even suggest it, regardless of who the people or the beliefs in question are. You, however, made this thread to argue in favor of such suppression.

 

 

According to the few webpages i have quickly researched on this SPLC claims to the FRC being an anti-gay organization is accurate.

 

How hard do you think it is to find "a few webpages" that would back the claim that Obama is in favor of increased gun control legislation?

 

 

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....

 

 

LaPierre is making a speculative prediction. I am dumbfounded that you continue to demand that he prove that something will happen in the future. It is almost like you do not understand the nature of time itself. I'm going to say this as simply as I can....

 

It is not possible to prove or disprove a prediction about the future. You have to wait and see what happens to find out if the person was correct.

 

It is no different than if I said "France will win the gold medal in men's basketball at the next olympics", and you replied "PROVE IT!".

 

Or if I said "Hillary Clinton will run for President in the next election" and you replied "PROVE IT!".

 

Or if I said "August will be very hot, with little rainfall" and you replied "PROVE IT!"

 

Or if I said "The next TES game will take place in Black Marsh" and you replied "PROVE IT!"

 

Or if I said "Star Wars VII is going to suck" and you replied "PROVE IT!"

 

Or if I said "When I die I will be a ghost and haunt your house" and you replied "PROVE IT!"

 

It is not possible to prove, or disprove, LaPierre's speculation as true or false. You can not prove that he is wrong, because Obama has not finished his term. LaPierre cannot prove the he is correct for the same reason.

[colourwheel]

 

You tell me, do you really think the SPLC should retract their position regarding The FRC?

 

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.

 

 

How hard do you think it is to find "a few webpages" that would back the claim that Obama is in favor of increased gun control legislation?

 

 

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

 

 

It is not possible to prove, or disprove, LaPierre's speculation as true or false. You can not prove that he is wrong, because Obama has not finished his term. LaPierre cannot prove the he is correct for the same reason.

 

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" ?

Edited June 6, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

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"....

Please explain what the difference is.

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

I'll agree with you it is not possible to prove or disprove anything since Obama's term isn't up yet.

 

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.

 

 

...when dangerous people are being brainwashed by his "Speculation" leading to Ricin laced letters being mailed to public officials echoing his "speculation" ?

 

Why do you believe that he has the power to brainwash people? Why are you so sure that the person who mailed the ricin did so because of LaPierre, despite the fact that we don't even know who the person is?

 

It is ironic that YOU are the one who is making accusations without proof, the very thing that you repeatedly accused LaPierre of doing and said he should be imprisoned for. Nothing that LaPierre says is unique to him alone, so it is not possible to link his statements with the ricin letters. There are plenty of other people who say the same sorts of things. Some of them are in congress, or work as judges, or are local politicians, or scholars, or artists. Why do you insist that LaPierre MUST be the source of the problem?

 

If LaPierre made a public statement that he was sorry, was wrong about everything, and was retiring do you think it would suddenly make the world a safer place?

[colourwheel]

 

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"....

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.

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

 

I'll agree with you it is not possible to prove or disprove anything since Obama's term isn't up yet.

 

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?

 

It is ironic that YOU are the one who is making accusations without proof, the very thing that you repeatedly accused LaPierre of doing and said he should be imprisoned for.

 

At what point in this entire thread did I ever say "LaPierre should be imprisoned"?

 

Nothing that LaPierre says is unique to him alone, so it is not possible to link his statements with the ricin letters. There are plenty of other people who say the same sorts of things. Some of them are in congress, or work as judges, or are local politicians, or scholars, or artists. Why do you insist that LaPierre MUST be the source of the problem?

 

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...

 

Why do you believe that he has the power to brainwash people? Why are you so sure that the person who mailed the ricin did so because of LaPierre, despite the fact that we don't even know who the person is?

 

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?

Edited June 6, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

 

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.

 

This is an absurd statement. It is not possible to pass a law that legislates something without affecting it.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

When LaPierre publicly 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.

 

He can claim whatever he wants. It does not make it true. Racial separatists claim to speak for all people of their race, despite the fact that most would want nothing to do with their message. It does not mean that all members of that race should be punished for the statements made by someone falsely claiming to speak on their behalf.

 

 

This means that you must recognize that LaPierre could possibly be incorrect in his assessment too.

 

I do recognize this. In fact, I agree that he is probably wrong at least as far as focusing blame on the President with regard to the gun control situation. I do, however, support his right to expression and refute his culpability with regard to the actions people who are beyond his control. It is unfair to hold someone accountable for the actions of another.

 

 

Just like if I claim someone is "pedophile" who is going to be coming after everyones "precious" children soon, I can't prove or disprove this.

 

The difference is that accusing a government official of pursuing an objectionable policy agenda is not an accusation of a crime. If you accuse someone of pedophilia you are making a criminal accusation. If the accusation is shown to be false, but your accusation demonstrably caused harm to that person's reputation, then you have slandered them. If you accuse an official of pursuing an objectionable policy you are not accusing them of anything illegal. The constitution is structured so that the 2nd amendment could be repealed if there was enough support for such a repeal, and the legal code is complex enough that the 2nd amendment can be circumvented in a number of ways. To accuse a person of pursuing the repeal or circumvention of the 2nd amendment is not to accuse them of a crime. It is an accusation of bad policy, and there is nothing wrong, immoral, or slanderous about that.

 

Why do you consistently refer to guns as "precious"?

Edited June 6, 2013 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

 

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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

 

 

If you accuse an official of pursuing an objectionable policy you are not accusing them of anything illegal.

 

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?

 

 

Why do you consistently refer to guns as "precious"?

 

Because they are just so precious to me... :teehee:

Edited June 7, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

There is no mention of overthrowing tyrannical government in the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the citizens to protect themselves from anything: government intrusion, criminals, foreign invaders, wild animals, aliens, whatever.

 

More importantly, my point was correct in that you are mistaken about the nature of the bill of rights. It does not grant rights to people. It protects the people from infringement upon their rights. It does not say that you have rights because the government gave them to you. Rather, it says that the government shall lack the power to infringe upon your rights. Governments do not give people rights. Governments take rights away. You are looking at it backwards.

 

But, for the sake of argument, let us pretend that you are correct and that is the intent of the law. Wouldn't that require that the citizens are able to obtain weapons that are on par with those that the military uses? In other words, if the purpose of the amendment is to protect the citizens from the government, and the government has automatic rifles, wouldn't a law prohibiting the possession of automatic rifles be in violation of the spirit, if not the wording, of the law?

 

 

 

 

Isn't it illegal to go to peoples homes and take away thier guns? Last time I checked that is unlaw without probable cause. Someone claiming someone is going to do something unlawful isn't that accusing them of of doing something illegal?

The accusation is that they will change or circumvent the law, not violate it. In other words, it is an accusation of bad policy, not an accusation of a crime. Your comparison to pedophilia is illogical. If you change the law, or legally circumvent it as was done in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, then it is not a violation. As you pointed out, there was a state of emergency declared in New Orleans that allowed that circumvention to take place. Given the fact that we have officially been in a perpetual national state of emergency for decades then there is no reason to doubt the possibility of LEGAL gun confiscations occurring. Also, as I pointed out before, even if an executive order to confiscate is illegal the people who are duty bound to carry out that order do not have the luxury of debating its legality. They must comply with the order. Some of the soldiers who were confiscating guns in New Orleans made it clear that they did not want to do it but they had no choice but to carry out their duties.

Edited June 7, 2013 by TRoaches