Man charged after threatening to kill Feinstein

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Now... if we can get similar treatment for conservatives who are threatened and harassed...

BINGO!

Oh ya, because your side doesn't own every pillar of government, you don't have the majority of the state assemblies...

Tell me how you are being persecuted or unrepresented?

You guys are so disingenuous. Do you really believe this, or are you just parroting the crap that comes out of Tucker and Alex's mouth? You know they are actually paid to say these foolish things, the Kochs are getting a lot of bang for their buck if you think this is true.

This is adorable. Hannity isn't public enemy #1 anymore? Now it's Tucker? I must have missed the memo.

In all fairness, I can't stand Carlson myself.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Kind of one of this things where I assume the worst I guess.

I'll agree with that.

Just cause a person legally owns one does not mean they are responsible. Just cause they took the class for ccw does not mean they are responsible.

And I think it's more than a few.

It's not more than a few; here's why:

I've known a few of these irresponsible gun owners in my time. They're easy to spot. Without fail, every single one decided to leave the guns alone, because no one wants to be around someone like that who is armed. They are shunned... not just from gun practice, but from everywhere. No one knows when they'll so something that gets themselves or others around them hurt.

It's like a hush-hush grapevine... word spreads fast, and the next thing you know he's got no social life. If he has the gun to hunt, he's out of luck; no one will give him permission to be hunting on their land (I have to know someone extremely well before I give permission). It doesn't take long before the social ostracization convinces them to quit carrying.

I don't like talking about that subject, mainly because it pains me to know there are people out there so clueless... but maybe we should talk about it more.

Didn't mean to sidetrack your thread into this. Just kind of happened

A gun was involved, and this addresses one of the hotbutton issues that seem to be leading to the violence... so it's not that far off topic IMO.

TheRedneck

a reply to: whargoul

So... I assume you think someone should kill Diane Feinstein? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TinySickTears

Now there is the good debating I was talking about.

Rather than to give a hypothetical, I give you a very recent (last Monday night in fact) when I could have used lethal force or the threat of lethal force legally. Instead I opted for a stare down to force him into continuing to yell, rant, rave and threaten to beat my ass. Even added a couple of ambiguous arm movements myself to keep him in talk mode and out of the silence of action mode. Still the very real thought of grabbing my gun (20 some feet away, btw) was there. So also was the thought of just snapping his left elbow. And I had long stopped speaking, so I was in action mode and was running options.

Wasn’t needed in the end in this case, but could have been used legally and justifiably. A cooler head prevailed.

So here is where an argument can be made. Was I responsible for not using or was I irresponsible for having the option cross my mind?

a reply to: Ahabstar

A strong point you make in that post:

I have yet to see someone yelling while they're shooting. I imagine it is possible, but I have never seen it and I have been in quite a few similar situations. The common response people have is to initially bluster in an attempt to intimidate their opponent. When a person is ready to take action, the mouth tends to shut.

I know that is how I do. If I think there's a way I can intimidate my way out of a situation, I'll yell, cuss, threaten, whatever to make that happen. When I go quiet and start trying to move away is when someone better back off.

A lot of primates do the same thing. It may be a genetically coded response.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TinySickTears

As a cautionary tale only. Perhaps even a warning to any person or entity who would subvert the Constitution to deprive us of God granted natural rights?

But neither of those should be controversial points. Certainly not to be taken as a credible & imminent threat or a threat at all.

I'm more worried about the ones who think they can cherry pick the Constitution based on our needs, as defined by them. Or those who believe a majority of any size should be able to deprive even a minority of 1 of their unalienable rights.

I can understand the frustration. I imagine most of those speaking out (at least 99%) are merely venting or reacting to entirely hypothetical scenarios. Neither of which constitute a crime (unless direct, credible and imminent threats are made) but it is admittedly not the most productive thing to do. It is hardly a surprise that so many folks are tired of being the target of harassment and often violence. Yet most of us still recognize how important it is we resist the temptation to descend into the same chaotic harassment/violence that our ideological adversaries engage in

Of course none of that applies to self-defense. If you're attacked, you have every right to defend yourself

a reply to: whargoul

Give me a break. Now we're the bad guys for denouncing those using the left's tactics of harass/intimidate/threaten/batter/? ?

Face it, if the left even put 1/100th the effort into denouncing ANTIFA and radical leftists as the right put into denouncing the crazies on our own side we'd have no problem. Of course that wouldn't work toward the left's use of planned provocations and hegelian dialectic (problem, reaction, solution synthesis)

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Gotcha. He said he was being sarcastic, but nobody else shared his sentiments.

Seriously?
r0xor posted the following: "She's a liberal. If she dies, she dies. Traitor socialist trying to destroy the fabric of our society. They're guilty of treason and the only solution is the final one; round them up and put them in camps."

In the next post, worldstarcountry says: "I agree, we can throw the administrators of the GEC with them, and their typed up threats they cleverly thought up while playing Ispy with their nsa friends on random cameras."

3 posts later, r0xor cops his post having been sarcasm.

Try and keep up, eh?

Ahem, I've got this:

Clearly this is a mentally unstable individual, and thus his political affiliation is of no consequence.

What do you think progressives of ATS, pretty good impression right?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

On a more serious note, good job to the everyone involved. This is not how you act when you disagree with or dislike someone.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It seems the recent slate of violence from the left has reached the other side, at least to a small degree.

Maybe, maybe not. All the news is reporting his political affiliation is unclear. He didn't donate to any party, not finding voter reg info yet, and his social media went largely unused. This could be a wackadoo conservative or it could be a wackadoo liberal who blames Feinstein's incompetence, bumbling, and illegal handling of "evidence" as the reason Brett Kavanaugh is now a SCOTUS justice and the dog and pony show Feinstein spearheaded soured many on the Dems in general. Remember, that party eats their own with little hesitation.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: TheRedneck

At this point I'm of the belief many of you yanks have simply gone off the deep end, I edited my post just before your post to me as I felt I needed to clarify what I'm saying.

Yanks are north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Very offensive to call someone south of it a yank. Slow your roll.

Yanks are also a name that some non Americans call American people, not as an insult but more as lighthearted and friendly description, if you yanks take that personally that's on you, perhaps stop looking for reasons to be pissed off ?

a reply to: TheRedneck

The Guy should get 5 Days of Community Service for that Crime , a Book Deal , and be Interviewed on CNN .

a reply to: seeker1963

Yep him and that Maxine waters ,and that tired old has been Kathy Griffin and anybody who threatens to kill anyone else just because they don't like their politics. Ultimate sanction only needs to be applied for self defense, in defense of others or as punishment for unspeakable crimes. Just because one guy follows a jackass and another a elephant is not reason enough to kill them.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Ahem, I've got this:

Clearly this is a mentally unstable individual, and thus his political affiliation is of no consequence.

What do you think progressives of ATS, pretty good impression right?
___________________________________________________________________________________________

On a more serious note, good job to the everyone involved. This is not how you act when you disagree with or dislike someone.

Yeah they actually caught one before he acted for once.

That actually happens a lot. LE doesn't get credit for many of the foiled plots because they don't get much coverage.

Used To Love Her"

I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I used to love her, Mm, yeah
But I had to kill her
I had to put her six feet under
And I can still hear her complain

I used to love her, Oo, yeah
But I had to kill her
I used to love her, Oo, yeah
But I had to kill her
I knew I'd miss her
So I had to keep her
She's buried right in my backyard
Oh yeah, Oo yeah, whoa, oh yeah

I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I used to love her, Mm, yeah
But I had to kill her
She bitched so much, She drove me nuts
And now I'm happier this way, yeah
Whoa, oh yeah

I used to love her
But I had to kill her
I used to love her, Mm, yeah
But I had to kill her
I had to put her, Oo, six feet under
And I can still hear her complain

Having a hard time finding a picture of this guy, no media outlets are showing what he looks like. Strange.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Does any of that matter?

The way I see it, all that is required for this to be a despicable act is for it to have happened. That's the point. Whether this guy was right-wing or left-wing is irrelevant to the charge. We do not have (or at least should not have) separate laws based on political leanings.

My assumption (and I will admit it was an assumption) was based on the fact that he is charged with threatening one of the most left-leaning members of Congress. One could argue in these politically charged times that this is enough to classify him as right-wing. After all, we have seen that those who target right leaning Congressional members seemingly always turn out to be sympathetic to the left.

TheRedneck

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yanks are also a name that some non Americans call American people, not as an insult but more as lighthearted and friendly description, if you yanks take that personally that's on you, perhaps stop looking for reasons to be pissed off ?

I find it strange that a statement of a label being offensive is refuted for some groups and yet is embraced for other groups. Is it not enough that those being addressed find your description offensive?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't know, I just know when I use the term yank it's not meant in a derogatory way, it's a shame that it is taken that way. I guess it kinda blows apart lesmis arguments words have no power.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I really wouldn't be surprised if this woman recieves death threats by the the hundreds, or thousands.

After her trying to destroy a mans life I suppose it is par for the course. No doubt security for her has been doubled courtesy of the U.S Tax payer. Then again maybe she has a Chinese bodyguard? Nonetheless, the left are sleeping with one eye open. Kind of refreshing ain't it?