As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Why isn't Sharron Angle in jail? [DOMESTIC TERRORISM]
jungleroomx
It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered User regular
It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered User regular
I'm serious about this, although a lot of people think I'm full of it (I have no democratic friends it seems, or ones that even give 2 craps about politics).
Sharron Angle not-so-subtly threatened the use of weapons and violence if her constituents and campaign did not get what they wanted. There are many ways to interpret the 2nd Amendment, but there's only one real definition of it: Right to bear arms.
A lot of people see her using the "2nd Amendment Solution" is simply a radical, extremist talking point designed to attract attention.
I take it as domestic terrorism, using the threat of violence by somebody in power (she is in a power position, and has followers) to influence government operations.
People say that we shouldn't take her too seriously, but the fact is that her message of a "2nd Amendment Solution" is spreading strikes some fear into my heart. There are newspaper articles questioning whether or not this "Solution" is a bad thing. We've got other politicians saying things about armed insurrection and revolution.
If these people were Muslim, they'd be stuck on target reports for the military.
Am I taking this too far? Because people who use intimidation tactics like showing up for their own (or other peoples rallies) fully armed are using bully, terror and intimidation tactics. People who threaten the lives of others due to political discourse are fostering the aspect of terrorisms most fundamental tenet, whether it's something they intend to finish or not.
I've been reading up on this for a while now and I simply can't believe how bad the Militia Reaction to what is pretty much the same policies and practices we had 2 years ago, with some minor changes here and there and a Health Care bill.
THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
Sharron Angle not-so-subtly threatened the use of weapons and violence if her constituents and campaign did not get what they wanted. There are many ways to interpret the 2nd Amendment, but there's only one real definition of it: Right to bear arms.
A lot of people see her using the "2nd Amendment Solution" is simply a radical, extremist talking point designed to attract attention.
I take it as domestic terrorism, using the threat of violence by somebody in power (she is in a power position, and has followers) to influence government operations.
People say that we shouldn't take her too seriously, but the fact is that her message of a "2nd Amendment Solution" is spreading strikes some fear into my heart. There are newspaper articles questioning whether or not this "Solution" is a bad thing. We've got other politicians saying things about armed insurrection and revolution.
If these people were Muslim, they'd be stuck on target reports for the military.
Am I taking this too far? Because people who use intimidation tactics like showing up for their own (or other peoples rallies) fully armed are using bully, terror and intimidation tactics. People who threaten the lives of others due to political discourse are fostering the aspect of terrorisms most fundamental tenet, whether it's something they intend to finish or not.
I've been reading up on this for a while now and I simply can't believe how bad the Militia Reaction to what is pretty much the same policies and practices we had 2 years ago, with some minor changes here and there and a Health Care bill.
THE QUESTION: WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM, AND WHEN ARE THEY JUST BEING AN ASSBASKET?
jungleroomx on
0
Posts
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I am not saying they are right or anything, or that they aren't terrorists. But if the terrorists win, then its a revolution, if they don't they are thugs. It's just a matter of perspective really.
You use the word crime here to imply that inciting violence is always wrong, which simply isn't the case.
The threat of violence when a situation does not go someones way can be construed as terrorist, especially when it's directed towards gov't officials.
Numerous threats have been made on democratic officials, some vague and probably just metaphorical, but Angle's was hard to misconstrue: If Reid gets elected, we can kill his ass.
Tea Partiers like to think of it as armed revolution... but it's difficult to revolt against a government you're controlling. What they're talking about isn't revolution, it's an armed coup.
Only if you take a moral relativist view.
How so?
ummm what?
are you implying that this is one of those cases?
I am not ruling out the possibility is all.
This is correct.
So you're saying that the assasination of a legally elected official is fine and dandy, and that a pre-emptive call-to-arms against someone who was freely elected, in accordance with all the laws, leaves open the possibility that this may be a good thing?
Jesus can we check the moral relativism at the door?
no
itis not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Are you serious? You are the one being a moral relativist here by using words such as "legally elected." Legally elected does not mean the things said official does are right or just. I hate to use this example because its done to death but, Hitler was legally elected. You also say in accordance with all the laws, as if all the laws are just or right. How is that not being a moral relativist? What if the law said I could kill anyone who stole my cheetos? Does that make me killing anyone who steals my cheetos a moral act?
Are you implying this is a good thing?
fact remains someone using a soapbox to incite others to violence is not protected by the first amendment
I'm stating a discrepancy.
as defined by a court ruling
And you bring even more relativism here. Appreciate that.
How so? What is your definition of moral relativism?
interpreting the Constitution is the fucking courts job
doesn't mean they do it well
You know, this is an attempt to discuss Sharron Angle's actions within the bounds of US Law, not to argue semantics over which law is just and which is right, and maybe the laws aren't right!
Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. But this isn't the venue for that. If you want a relativistic dissection of US policies, you can make your own thread. I'm trying to discuss the situation with laws on domestic terrorim and freedom of speech as parameters, not variables.
I lean heavily towards First Amendment Rights and you have to prove within a shadow of a doubt that she's inciting violence. I think she's a nutjob whose rhetoric can be used to justify violence. I've talked a lot when we've had similar threads about how close to the line I think a lot of Republicans come. Especially Beck and the anti-abortion movement. I think you can make a case that Beck could be tried in the Tides Foundation murders. And a lawsuit against him might have a decent shot at winning.
But I am incredibly cautious in this area for what I think are obvious reasons.
I think he's using the word "crime" to imply that it's against the law.
that case weighs heavily on the side of free speech really
you can say whatever you want for the most part as imminent threat of violence is a standard thats damn near impossible to prove.
Look dude, I didnt mean to upset or offend. I just like to question everything that is all. I think things should be more questioned than they are. But if you don't want to do that in this thread thats cool.
No, it does not
What's that have to do with the price of tea in china?
then you godwined the thread
Right, which is why you'll note the original statement in this line of conversation that I agreed with was the First Amendment protects her right to say stupid things. I'm not as sure it protects Glenn Beck's right to say really stupid, inflammatory things. Or various other Republicans. The politician who comes closest is probably Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas who says some truly batshit things on the floor of the House.
Time out. Let's look at the quote in context.
This is a reference to Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts. He's basically saying that most of the time when this blood of patriots gets spilled it's because they don't have all their facts in order. The important part, Jefferson believed, is to (first and foremost) educate those in rebellion, then forgive and put down said rebellion. So many people use this quote as a call to arms (and so many of these movements are "founded in ignorance"), when it's really a prescription for the government on how to handle those in violent or near-violent revolt.
[/history lesson]
Unsurprising.
Speech which incurs a threat of imminent violence is not protected under the 1st Amendment. What Angle said doesn't even come close.
Minus shit like how you can't yell "bomb!" in a theater at random.
Freedom of speech doesn't protect me from walking into a bank and demanding that they hand over a bunch of money in a sack. It doesn't protect me from threatening to kill someone for looking at my daughter. And it certainly doesn't protect me from threatening to use my 2nd amendment rights if I don't get what I want from the government. The above applies to everyone.
I absolutely guarantee the courts would not agree. Because your 2nd amendment rights, literally, means you get to own a gun.
What she meant is obvious, and abhorrent, but you can make the case if you're a half decent lawyer (and she'd get the GOP's best).
As in, "What I meant is we're going to OWN guns, not use them on anyone!"
That would be pretty slimy. I hope she dies in a fire.