Running Gator Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 Just now, shiloh357 said: It is a contributing factor when you consider how many radicalized members of the resistance who are sitting on the fence, seething just under the surface and would like to see Trump's life ended in a violent way. There are some people who are ripe for that kind of inspiration and this man was just one such person. He was marinating in his hate for Trump and the Republican party and over time, it finally brought him to the point that he was willing to do what some had only talked about and suggested. And to some of those militant people he will be seen as a hero, not as a criminal. I love how one is a "contributing factor' and the other had nothing at all whatsoever to do with it. So, do you really think this man from Belleville Ill is a big fan of Shakespeare in the Park and saw the performance, so that it could "contribute" to his actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 1 minute ago, MorningGlory said: Constitutional guarantees don't make sense to the Marxist, pro-islam leftists unless they can use them to further their agenda. The man who did the shooting was a prime example of the leftist mindset. It makes me wonder how many millions like him are out there. I am wondering how many, as well. There are those who are like him in that they are seething with hate and don't need much to push them over the line and end up doing what this guy did. They see him as a hero. The very day of the incident, members of Congress on the Republican side started getting death threats and one even had a suspicious substance sent to her. It's starting to get real, that is for sure, and we may be in for one rough ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Running Gator said: I love how one is a "contributing factor' and the other had nothing at all whatsoever to do with it. Because they are two different things. You cannot even begin compare them. Quote So, do you really think this man from Belleville Ill is a big fan of Shakespeare in the Park and saw the performance, so that it could "contribute" to his actions? It's a contributing factor to the overall mindset of those who want to see the president killed. It may not be contributing factor in his exact case, and I was not saying it was, but stuff like Kathy Griffin video and this play, given the kind of violent political environment we are in at this time is going to give some people the inspiration they need to do these kinds of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2017 45 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Because they are two different things. You cannot even begin compare them. It's a contributing factor to the overall mindset of those who want to see the president killed. It may not be contributing factor in his exact case, and I was not saying it was, but stuff like Kathy Griffin video and this play, given the kind of violent political environment we are in at this time is going to give some people the inspiration they need to do these kinds of things. Leftists are only concerned about such hate speech and action if it is generated from the right and toward their pillars of Marxism. At present, I have seen nothing from any of the usual right wing extremists at all. It may be out there but I just haven't seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: Because they are two different things. You cannot even begin compare them. It's a contributing factor to the overall mindset of those who want to see the president killed. It may not be contributing factor in his exact case, and I was not saying it was, but stuff like Kathy Griffin video and this play, given the kind of violent political environment we are in at this time is going to give some people the inspiration they need to do these kinds of things. But somehow telling people that the reason we have the 2nd amendment is to shoot at the government could not possibly play any role whatsoever in someone shooting at the government. It is just mind boggling sometimes how one sided people see things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, Running Gator said: But somehow telling people that the reason we have the 2nd amendment is to shoot at the government could not possibly play any role whatsoever in someone shooting at the government. It is just mind boggling sometimes how one sided people see things. The 2nd Amendment protects from the government and is a protection from unlawful government action. It is the right of self-defense if the government decides to take unlawful armed action against its citizens. Something tells me that you are not correctly representing what the judge meant. If the judge were encouraging people to go out and shoot at government/elected officials, that would be different. I am not being "one-sided." I simply don't trust your handling of the judge's words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 17 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: The 2nd Amendment protects from the government and is a protection from unlawful government action. It is the right of self-defense if the government decides to take unlawful armed action against its citizens. Something tells me that you are not correctly representing what the judge meant. If the judge were encouraging people to go out and shoot at government/elected officials, that would be different. I am not being "one-sided." I simply don't trust your handling of the judge's words. What the judge meant is irrelevant. The people doing Shakespeare in the Park do not mean for people to see their play and go kill elected officials yet you are more than willing to give them the blame. But when it comes to someone from the right, all that matters is what the meant. The political double standard once again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Aristotle Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 907 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 264 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/10/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2017 6 hours ago, Running Gator said: According to Judge Andrew Napolitano this is why we have the second amendment... Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical! So, my question is this, are statements like this partially to blame for what happened last week? SNOPCLAIM SNOPES Fact Check Politics Rand Paul Tweeted That Purpose of Second Amendment Is to Shoot at Tyrannical Government? A genuine tweet posted by the Kentucky senator was circulated out of context after lawmaker Steve Scalise was shot in Virginia. Rand Paul tweeted that the Second Amendment wasn't designed to protect our right to shoot deer, but the government when it becomes tyrannical. RATING RATING: MIXTURE WHAT'S TRUE WHAT'S TRUE: Rand Paul's Twitter account posted a message that said the Second Amendment was created not to "shoot deer," but to allow people "to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!"WHAT'S FALSE WHAT'S FALSE: Paul was quoting a comment from Judge Napolitano; a spokesman claimed that the tweet was posted by a staffer. ORIGIN....(Continues) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, Anonymous Aristotle said: SNOPCLAIM SNOPES Fact Check Politics Rand Paul Tweeted That Purpose of Second Amendment Is to Shoot at Tyrannical Government? A genuine tweet posted by the Kentucky senator was circulated out of context after lawmaker Steve Scalise was shot in Virginia. Rand Paul tweeted that the Second Amendment wasn't designed to protect our right to shoot deer, but the government when it becomes tyrannical. RATING RATING: MIXTURE WHAT'S TRUE WHAT'S TRUE: Rand Paul's Twitter account posted a message that said the Second Amendment was created not to "shoot deer," but to allow people "to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!"WHAT'S FALSE WHAT'S FALSE: Paul was quoting a comment from Judge Napolitano; a spokesman claimed that the tweet was posted by a staffer. ORIGIN....(Continues) From your link... This message is genuine. It was posted by Paul on 23 June 2016, and remains on his timeline. However, the words in the tweet are not Paul’s; they are a quote from Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News judicial analyst and author. His Twitter handle, @Judgenap, appears at the beginning of the tweet to show that Paul is quoting Napolitano, who at the time was speaking at a lecture series Paul organized. Nice try though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Aristotle Posted June 18, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 907 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 264 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/10/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted June 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, Running Gator said: From your link... This message is genuine. It was posted by Paul on 23 June 2016, and remains on his timeline. However, the words in the tweet are not Paul’s; they are a quote from Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News judicial analyst and author. His Twitter handle, @Judgenap, appears at the beginning of the tweet to show that Paul is quoting Napolitano, who at the time was speaking at a lecture series Paul organized. Nice try though! That's a little twisted to roll on your back and laugh like that. Because I didn't try anything. I did in fact post a Snopes article that speaks for itself. Realizing offenders will jump at any opportunity, I forgive your try in that respect. The foolish here is not I. Because I actually read the full article and for that reason it was sourced here. Unlike the OP itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts