The difference is the implied violence, and you know it
We're saying refrain from inflammatory violent rhetoric that does nothing but make it easy for the grabbers to paint us as whackjobs.
Plenty have -- it was on the news. It doesn't nothing to help us. It does a lot to hurt us.Do you honestly think most people will even hear of this story and care anyway?
Yes there is. Any parent would take it as a threat -- you KNOW this when you say it -- therefore it is a threat. The grammar doesn't matter.There is no "implied" violence.
I believe it was Bush Sr. that put in place the import ban over a decade ago. Please correct me with a cite if I am wrong.
You can link me to a description of these arrests and reclassifications?
You can show me one of these that has been settled and is now legal precendent?
I believe I asked for laws that had been passed. Not bills and other hypotheticals.
I concede nothing. It's the secret service's job to investigate all perceived threats; see below.You concede the Secret Service probably won't agree with you? If they won't, why do you seem to assume that anybody else would?
It's not a matter of grammar, it's a matter of intent. The wording makes its intention known as non-threatening. Just because someone who doesn't know any better, perceives it as a threat, doesn't make it a legitimate threat.Yes there is. Any parent would take it as a threat -- you KNOW this when you say it -- therefore it is a threat. The grammar doesn't matter.