Republican lawmaker: Time to 'empty the clip' on illegal immigration

If someone is crazy enough or angry enough to 'empty the clip' on immigrants, illegal or not, they don't need some political windbag suggesting they do so. By the same token, a sane person isn't going to start a shoot-em-up because of someone's words.

This guy, who I believe is trying to appeal to the Tea Party, has every right to say what he is saying. A lot of people these days are using this gun rhetoric to appeal to Tea Party supporters. We have noticed it recently because of the guns being brought to rallies and all the talk about the government wanting to take our guns away. The tea party was supposed to be about taxes, but it's come to be about guns.

It's just a big silly game. The game of politics.

I am not bothered by this man's words. It's just words. But when some Alabaman (or anyone in the country) goes guano crazy and has himself a good old-fashioned shooting spree on immigrants, this Senator is going to be in the cross hairs, if you know what I mean. THAT'S why he should be careful what he speaks. Because this country will hold him responsible, even if he isn't.

IMO, People in public positions SHOULD be careful what they say because if this comes back on him, his career will be over. But if he wants to take that chance, it doesn't bother me at all.

People don't seem to understand idioms or metaphors anymore. Just another sign that education is failing the people of America. How can so many people who claim to have been to college just not understand what he meant? Are people trying to play another political game or are they just unbelievably stupid?

reply to post by MindSpin


That is my point.. Who are you to say its a bad choice of words? Do you really think he was telling americans to make sure they fire every last bullet... Or using a saying that implies exhausting all Ammo...

Ammo - in a non violent situation would be things like protests and laws against illegal immigration..

Some of you are softer than Charmin and need to do some testosterone based hobbies to un-sissify yourselves.

Originally posted by retiredTxn

Really? I think he made a comment which the average person would understand and not believe it to be a call for violence.

I agree - unfortunately however, the world does not consist entirely of the 'average person' - fueling the fires of feeble minds simply hurries the conflagration. The same sentiment could have been articulated without reference to arms in any number of ways.

Oz

reply to post by 547000


Personally, I understood it was a colloquialism, and yes, of course it's not literal- and I think that most people who'd say it was wrong would realise that as well. Someone in this thread, who defended him, even said that it's a colloquialism of a 'gun state'- thus they even admitted the statements connotations relate to guns, so it's not like there's any grey area as to what the phrase relates to. Just because something's a metaphor, or whatever, it doesn't mean it's automatically totally acceptable.

Call me a soft lefty if you want, which I am not anyway, but I don't see why it's necessary to come out with a phrase like this. It would have taken a matter of seconds to think of something which meant the exact same. Like it or not, a politican should choose their words wisely, as they are supposed to be an example/representitives for the rest of us. In their own time, sure, they are free to use whichever words they want, but in a public context, they should choose their words carefully.

Oh well, no doubt this thread has already devolved into an us vs them debate, in which both sides have already made up their own mind. I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that However, not everyone who disagrees with his choice of words are stupid or uneducated- different people have different opinions on things, it's the way of the world, we're not ants with a hive mind.

Would "tightening the noose" on illegal immigration be just as bad? I see nothing wrong because it is an idiom any sane person would understand. He doesn't mean hang immigrants or shoot them, he means to attack illegal immigration and pass laws to prevent it from happening.

reply to post by 547000


Sen. Scott sounds dumber than a box of Rocks to make a foolish statement that he knew he would have to apologize for in the future. Which he did; to his credit.

I have a buttload of colloquialisms to describe Sen. Scott and his supporters.

reply to post by Resurrectio

Some of you are softer than Charmin and need to do some testosterone based hobbies to un-sissify yourselves.

Oh that's right...common sense, intelligence, and decency means you are a "sissy".

Let me go out and shoot a gun, drink some beer, and sexual assault a women...then maybe you will consider me "un-sissified".

People are responsible for the words that they use...if someone chooses to use idiotic words/phrases...then we have the right to point that out.

But after you accusing me of being a "sissy"...oh noes...maybe I will just abandon my common sense next time, grab my crotch and applaud morons making ridiculous statements...will I then have your approval???

On the other hand, a few narrow minded politically correct wacko's spend their time on earth looking for something that might appear offensive, racist, or threatening.

On the other hand a few narrow minded, racist wackos who spend their time looking for a bogeyman on which to blame all their ills may misconstrue this statement as one which asked them to empty the clip.

I get it, having grown up in the south that these types of phrases are common. I have used them myself. However, I am not a public figure.

Originally posted by Ozscot

Originally posted by retiredTxn

Really? I think he made a comment which the average person would understand and not believe it to be a call for violence.

I agree - unfortunately however, the world does not consist entirely of the 'average person' - fueling the fires of feeble minds simply hurries the conflagration.

By the very definition of average, the vast majority of people understand his words to be harmless: the so-called "feeble minds" are the minority. Should we censor and alter everything for the lowest common denominators? How many people does anyone here really think finds this to be a call to arms? 1:10,000? 1:100,000?

Truly? I doubt there is more than one in ten million people that finds this to be an actual call to violence. It's a statement meant to rabble-rouse, it gets people excited about the topic by inflaming passion. Anyone who honestly believes it's time to start shooting because a politician said so, was thinking about it long before anybody said anything.

reply to post by MindSpin


What is ignorant, is your view of not being a sissy.. Sexual assault really? How about you bottle all that drama up and send it to your mother..

Why is it, nowadays people feel that their view is the only view that employs common sense? Is it an overestimation of self worth? Did mommies coddle their babies a little to much? It is really starting to get annoying.

So what he is held to his words..

Are you going to attack someone when they tell you to "break a leg?" Again...get over yourself.

Originally posted by ScepticalBeliever
Call me a soft lefty if you want, which I am not anyway, but I don't see why it's necessary to come out with a phrase like this

I just want to say something about this phrase, which I see used all the time. "I don't see why it's necessary..." It's NOT necessary. Very few things we do or say are necessary. But not being necessary is not a good enough reason to stop someone from doing something. People say, "I don't see why it's necessary ..."

... to own a gun.
... to hunt
... to speak one's mind
... for gays to be married
... for women to be on the front lines
... for gays to serve openly
... for people to resist scanners (If you have nothing to hide...)
... for Obama to keep his private information private
... for Sarah Palin to use cross hairs


And they're right. NONE if that is necessary. So what? It's called exercising our freedoms. So the next time you find yourself thinking "I don't see why it's necessary for people to do what they're doing..." remember that you're suggesting that people need to have a valid reason for living free lives and exercising our Constitutionally-protected rights.

No, it's not necessary. It doesn't HAVE to be!

Originally posted by ScepticalBelieverCall me a soft lefty if you want, which I am not anyway, but I don't see why it's necessary to come out with a phrase like this. It would have taken a matter of seconds to think of something which meant the exact same. Like it or not, a politican should choose their words wisely, as they are supposed to be an example/representitives for the rest of us. In their own time, sure, they are free to use whichever words they want, but in a public context, they should choose their words carefully.

Ok, here is the problem that I think people are having with these kinds of statements. The issue is one that is a symptom of a much larger problem.

As you said; politicians are representatives for the rest of us. He does not represent NYC or California or the people who live in Chicago; he represents people who live in Alabama. That was his audience not the nation and especially not the world. Anyone who takes a speaking 101 class will tell you to talk to the audience as they will understand it. Note that this and the “best way to present it” are not the same.

If the President said this – (to use a non-PC metaphor) fire away! He represents the country at large and his comments are fair game for the left wing press in NYC and Chicago. This Senator – not so much. That is the larger issue. The people and the politicians as well are forgetting who they are supposed to represent. They (the Senators who no longer seem to represent the States since the 17th Amendment) are trying to, because of media pressure from 24/7 MSM news outlets, be all things to people who they do not represent. It is costing them their jobs and rightly so.

The Representative from our district would be committing political suicide to come here and spout anti-gun rhetoric. Actually, using a hunting or gun related metaphor would be to his advantage as would touting religion, god and other taboos in the more liberal parts of the country.

Why should he give a rat’s arse what the NY times thinks about what he said. No one here reads it – we read the local paper that comes out once a week for 75 cents in its complete 10 page glory. He doesn’t have to pander PC bull crap because his constituents are not liberals who idolize people who speak thusly.

Are there better and more PC metaphors to use – sure there are but why should he need to…his constituents don’t. Again, like I said, this is a symptom of a larger problem – Congressmen represent the district and the Senators are supposed to represent the State; however, that effect has been eroded since the passing if the 17th Amendment. . Not coincidentally one can see the steady erosion of State’s rights after its passage.

They do not represent the country at large nor should they try to. It is simply the MSM making hay out of something to influence an area that is not totally on board with their agenda. The politicians seem to be buying it which is actually the sad part.

I mean take Nancy Pelosi for instance if she were to take the criticism of her actions on FOX news to heart and act on them – she surely would not be reelected in San Francisco.

reply to post by Resurrectio

What is ignorant, is your view of not being a sissy

Could you please educate me...you seem to have all the answers???

How about you bottle all that drama up and send it to your mother
...
Why is it, nowadays people feel that their view is the only view that employs common sense? Is it an overestimation of self worth? Did mommies coddle their babies a little to much? It is really starting to get annoying.
...
Again...get over yourself.

Do you ever make a statement without an Ad Hom in it?


I'm sorry you can not see the logic in trying to keep discussion civil without bringing in references to violence (or in your case with attempted insults). There is no other way to "empty a clip"...it will always be associated with violence.

By the very definition of average, the vast majority of people understand his words to be harmless: the so-called "feeble minds" are the minority. Should we censor and alter everything for the lowest common denominators? How many people does anyone here really think finds this to be a call to arms? 1:10,000? 1:100,000?

Truly? I doubt there is more than one in ten million people that finds this to be an actual call to violence. It's a statement meant to rabble-rouse, it gets people excited about the topic by inflaming passion. Anyone who honestly believes it's time to start shooting because a politician said so, was thinking about it long before anybody said anything.

I agree largely with what you are saying however consider this. This is a conspiracy forum - In one sense a definition of conspiracy is that others are not presenting you with the truth and so you look to the minutiae of what is being said, the nuances of a sentence from those in power to extract precisely what is being inferred and you rest happily in the knowledge that you have gained the truth because 'You understand what it REALLY means' - There will be those (in the minority I concede) who are not motivated by Aliens or UFO's, or FEMA or DHS but who are motivated politically to derive the REAL expressions being uttered by politicians. And there good sir lies the problem. Why would any politician want to play into their hands? In another time, another place, we could have all slapped one another's backs and said 'Good Speech - and what a good way to put it - 'Empty the Clip on them immigrants!' - in an age of innocence and harmony this may well be acceptable - we forsook that age a long time ago (if we ever had it) - it's why we are all here is it not? Because we think so much of what goes on 'out there' is not what it seems - yes?

Somewhere this evening there's a wacko lying in bed thinking 'Did my Senator just make the call to arms?'

Of course it wasn't his intention - but if it shows anything - it shows a huge lack of responsibility, intelligence, compassion (because whether he likes it or not he just made a vulnerable section of society feel even more vulnerable), and judgement. In short, it was damned stupid.

Oz

reply to post by MindSpin


You can not deny that you are dramatic.. Its pathetic..

Now.. What do you have to say about "break a leg"??? When your mother told you that, do you believe she wished you ill will? Of course she didn't.. She was taught that this was an appropriate phrase to tell someone when you are wishing them good luck.

When a coach tells his team "Lets kick their arse" -- Is he implying he wants them to beat them up? Or has this been taught to mean "win"

Why is everyone too ignorant or close minded to see what he meant? It is unbelievable to me.

When the guy on flight 93 said "lets roll" ... Should we assume they were going to roll down the isle?

The ignorance in this argument is astounding! He wanted to convey "Fight till the end" "To the last breath" "Empty the clip" - They are sayings that people learn, then use in life.

Anyone all up in arms over this, is not employing logic... and frankly, are being dramatic.

They are words - they are protected by freedom of speech..

Originally posted by Resurrectio


You can not deny that you are dramatic.. Its pathetic..

Now.. What do you have to say about "break a leg"??? When your mother told you that, do you believe she wished you ill will? Of course she didn't.. She was taught that this was an appropriate phrase to tell someone when you are wishing them good luck.

When a coach tells his team "Lets kick their arse" -- Is he implying he wants them to beat them up? Or has this been taught to mean "win"

Why is everyone too stupid or close minded to see what he meant? It is unbelievable to me.

When the guy on flight 93 said "lets roll" ... Should we assume they were going to roll down the isle?

The ignorance in this argument is astounding! He wanted to convey "Fight till the end" "To the last breath" "Empty the clip" - They are sayings that people learn, then use in life.

Anyone all up in arms over this, is not employing logic... and frankly, are being dramatic.

The point being made is sailing completely over your head - and I don't mean in catamaran form. I'm sure you'll see that though. No one - absolutely no one is arguing for a blanket ban on metaphors, similes or analogies - they are however arguing against this one. And if all things are context dependent then I can understand why.

Oz

reply to post by Resurrectio


A mother talking to a son is different than a politician making a public statement.

A coach talking to a team is different than a politician making a public statement.

How do you not see this?


But to address your "break a leg" comment...would you tell someone how had their legs broken in the past to go "break a leg"? Would you tell a guy in a wheel chair "let's roll"? Would you tell someone with a lazy eye to "look me in the eye"?

There is a proper way to use all sayings...and politicians are under more scrutiny than a mom talking to their kid or a coach talking to his team.


If you are unable to see that...then maybe the problem lies with you and not with us.

reply to post by MindSpin


they are only under more scrutiny, because they have to worry that their words will be twisted by ignorant people. This guy made a statement that was meant to convey a message of "fight till the end".. So what?

Your logic could not be more drama driven and flawed..

So using your logic.. you can't use the word fight to a person that lost someone in a fight?
So a politician can't talk about cars to someone that had a loved one killed by a car?

Do you believe in freedom of speech?? It sure doesn't sound like it..

Seems that you might believe in freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't offend someone..

This conversation is over... You do not have the ability to understand what is going on here.

But to address your "break a leg" comment...would you tell someone how had their legs broken in the past to go "break a leg"? Would you tell a guy in a wheel chair "let's roll"? Would you tell someone with a lazy eye to "look me in the eye"?

Answer to your question... If it was in my speech and these people happened to be present.. YES, YES I WOULD!

reply to post by MindSpin

Yes. It's "just" a colloquialism." Quaint. Endearing. Right. Nice rationalization. I suspect the real truth is he says far, far worse when he's not in the public eye. Slips like this are but just a glimpse into the mind.