Gun-rights banner at Capitol draws outcry over its language

[MikeFL86]

We are making progress, but not much, legislatively at the federal level. You had all best donate to the Second Amendment Foundation and support their work on Parker. This is the last real chance for any change in this country.

 

[General Geoff]

The difference is the implied violence, and you know it

No, I do not. You are fabricating things from nothing. There is no "implied" violence.

Saying "so and so should be shot" is NOT a threat. It's an OPINION, nothing more. It's not a statement claiming to take any action. "I'm going to shoot so and so," on the other hand, IS a threat. Major difference, buddy.

 

[Joe Demko]

Call up the Whitehouse, tell them that The Decider "should be shot" and then get back to us on how well telling them it wasn't a threat works out for you.

 

[MikeFL86]

We're saying refrain from inflammatory violent rhetoric that does nothing but make it easy for the grabbers to paint us as whackjobs.

Do you honestly think most people will even hear of this story and care anyway? They're too busy watching American Idol.

 

[General Geoff]

Just because I know the difference, doesn't mean the Secret Service does.

And besides, I don't think the president or any other politician should be shot. Why would I call them up and lie? I'm not a politician (yuk yuk).

 

[Joe Demko]

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?

 

[cuchulainn]

Do you honestly think most people will even hear of this story and care anyway?

Plenty have -- it was on the news. It doesn't nothing to help us. It does a lot to hurt us.

There is no "implied" violence.

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.

 

[jpk1md]

I have to agree that the message was symbolic due to the reference to the well documented 'Tree of Liberty" reference. Great sign!

Too much PC response in the article.....too many of our lawmakers are total spineless puss*&^%

The Dems are pulling the usual bogus "Hate Crimes" BS when they should just grow a skin.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

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.

No. That was yet another one. The loophole allowing foreign firearms with US made parts has been closing under Bush Jr. The aforementioned 1911 (sorry for the typo) is one such affected. http://www.marstar.ca/gf-norinco/M-14S.shtm This was within the last year or so.

You can link me to a description of these arrests and reclassifications?

No. But you can check AR15.com and AK47.net for the weekly busts of po-buckers getting taken down for such violations. There is no "web published" list of classifications they consider contraband. The BATFE labs come up with random classifications on their own. Its part of the JPFO documentery http://www.jpfo.org/bootbatfe.htm#expose.

You can show me one of these that has been settled and is now legal precendent?

You mean like Silveria Vs Lockyer? Establishing the legal fiction of RKBA as a "collective" Right? Or that the recent Bushmaster ruling stating Bushmasters partial culpability in the DC Sniper case?

I believe I asked for laws that had been passed. Not bills and other hypotheticals.

I don't think you are interested in a cogent argument at all. If you want to send me on a wild goose chase, you are going to have a long wait...

 

[General Geoff]

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?

I concede nothing. It's the secret service's job to investigate all perceived threats; see below.

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.

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.

To be perfectly honest, if someone told me that my daughter should be raped, I'd be plenty pissed. A threat, however, that does not make.

The legal definition of a threat depends largely on INTENT, and without that, it is not a threat. End of story.

 

[Art Eatman]

Way too much wandering off topic...