Responsible Gun Owner Takes A Stand On Gun Control (Sarcasm)

[fgalkin]

Responds to threat of taking away his means of murdering people by trying to murder people

A letter addressed to President Obama that may have been contaminated with the deadly toxin ricin is similar to two ricin-laced letters recently sent to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the U.S. Secret Service said Thursday.

A screening facility for mail sent to the White House intercepted the recent letter addressed to Mr. Obama, Secret Service spokesman Edwin Donovan said. The letter has been turned over to the FBI's joint terrorism task force for testing and investigation.

CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports that the letter was postmarked from Shreveport, La.

Play Video
Who sent ricin-laced letters to Bloomberg, gun control group?

Shreveport was also the postmark for the two contaminated letters sent to Bloomberg in New York and his gun-control group in Washington. All three letters were postmarked May 20.

Orr reported Thursday that, according to two sources, the letter sent to Bloomberg carried the following threat:

"You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you."

Law enforcement sources say the ricin is crudely made and of poor quality.

Authorities say the three responding officers who came into contact with the letter in New York suffered some minor symptoms. No one was seriously hurt, but the joint terrorism task force, which includes the FBI and the NYPD, is also investigating that case.

Ricin scare: What makes it so potentially deadly?

Bloomberg spoke with reporters shortly after the threats against him became public Wednesday evening.

"No, I'm not angry," said Bloomberg. "There are people who, I would argue, do things that may be irrational, do things that are wrong, but it's a very complex world out there, and we just have to deal with that."

CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano reports that a worker at a mail facility in lower Manhattan Friday intercepted the letter addressed to Bloomberg that was laced with the highly toxic poison.

Another tainted letter was discovered two days later in Washington at a building that houses Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a non-profit group Bloomberg helped start. That envelope was addressed to the group's director, Mark Glaze.

Both mailings had no return address.

They contained a pink-orange, oily substance, and each letter threatened bodily harm against the mayor and made references to his stance on gun control.

Play Video
Ricin suspect charged with sending poison letters

Last month, a Mississippi man was arrested for trying to send ricin-laced letters to Mr. Obama, Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker and a judge. The letters addressed to the president and Wicker were sent April 8. Both letters tested positive for ricin but were intercepted before they reached their targets.

James Everett Dutschke was arrested at his home in Tupelo, Miss., April 27 in that investigation. In court papers, the FBI said ricin was found in a martial-arts studio run by Dutschke.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thanks a lot for the personal insult, my so-called friend.

[fgalkin]

Thanks a lot for the personal insult, my so-called friend.

Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm? Or did you seriously assume I thought this guy was a responsible anything?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stark]

Professional knee-jerker jerks knee.

Anyway, what makes constitutional rights god-given? Is this like Marduk giving Washington scrolls of wisdom or just apocrypha nationalists say?

[Flagg]

Professional knee-jerker jerks knee.

Anyway, what makes constitutional rights god-given? Is this like Marduk giving Washington scrolls of wisdom or just apocrypha nationalists say?

Because the rights are "self evident" and "inalienable" people have taken that to mean they are passed down from the lord our god Jesus Christ.

[Stark]

When did that start? American constitutional EU isn't my forte. It's just such a bizarre thing to say, especially about an amendment. Christ the Saviour called back, said yes, guns for all.

[Flagg]

When did that start? American constitutional EU isn't my forte. It's just such a bizarre thing to say, especially about an amendment. Christ the Saviour called back, said yes, guns for all.

It's been that way since long before I've been around. I think its always been like that from the founding. Not officially mind you.

[fgalkin]

Seriously, Flagg, did you even go to school?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

That's where the idea comes from.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Flagg]

Seriously, Flagg, did you even go to school?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

That's where the idea comes from.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I refferenced that document you illiterate troll.

[fgalkin]

Uh-huh.

It's been that way since long before I've been around. I think its always been like that from the founding. Not officially mind you.

I see a reference to the Declaration of Independence in that...where?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Flagg]

Professional knee-jerker jerks knee.

Anyway, what makes constitutional rights god-given? Is this like Marduk giving Washington scrolls of wisdom or just apocrypha nationalists say?

Because the rights are "self evident" and "inalienable" people have taken that to mean they are passed down from the lord our god Jesus Christ.

[Stark]

Since its the document that contains the text he referred to, I wasn't confused.

But isn't the declaration not a legal thing? It's just a big traitor manifesto, is it a part of law like the constitution and its amendments? I'm really interested in this idea that people see rights as 'god given', because not only does this show a fundamental failure of civics education but it explains why people radicalise so readily on these issues if they consider it a religious or axiomatic issue.

[Terralthra]

Thanks a lot for the personal insult, my so-called friend.

This is like the second time in a week or so that you've found "personal insults" where you weren't being talked about or to. Are you, like, ok? Something stressing you out that you're bringing to the forum?

[fgalkin]

Since its the document that contains the text he referred to, I wasn't confused.

But isn't the declaration not a legal thing? It's just a big traitor manifesto, is it a part of law like the constitution and its amendments? I'm really interested in this idea that people see rights as 'god given', because not only does this show a fundamental failure of civics education but it explains why people radicalise so readily on these issues if they consider it a religious or axiomatic issue.

This is a guy who is sending out ricin letters because someone, somewhere wants to maybe, somehow, limit his ability buy a gun without any restrictions whatsoever. Do you think he will be stopped by such minor things as the document he is citing having no legal authority?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[PKRudeBoy]

Since its the document that contains the text he referred to, I wasn't confused.

But isn't the declaration not a legal thing? It's just a big traitor manifesto, is it a part of law like the constitution and its amendments? I'm really interested in this idea that people see rights as 'god given', because not only does this show a fundamental failure of civics education but it explains why people radicalise so readily on these issues if they consider it a religious or axiomatic issue.

I'm fairly certain it doesn't set any binding precedent, but it does provide a strong argument about the intent behind the Constitution, considering that the Declaration of Independence was the impetus behind the formation of the US. As far as it being an axiomatic issue, a better argument would be since it is included in the Constitution, it already has a process for amending it and that the process hasn't been used, but that same argument could be applied to a whole host of issues.

[Stark]

This is a guy who is sending out ricin letters because someone, somewhere wants to maybe, somehow, limit his ability buy a gun without any restrictions whatsoever. Do you think he will be stopped by such minor things as the document he is citing having no legal authority?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Owned. Lol

I'm just curious where his ideas come from; especially since 'god given right' is apparently so common it's been a joke for fifty years.

[Tanasinn]

Thanks a lot for the personal insult, my so-called friend.

This is like the second time in a week or so that you've found "personal insults" where you weren't being talked about or to. Are you, like, ok? Something stressing you out that you're bringing to the forum?

Here's a fun thought experiment. Let's start a thread about the beheading in London and call it "Average Muslim Responds to Criticism of his Religion," then hide behind 'it was just hyperbole/sarcasm!' I wonder how long until THAT thread gets HoS'd after a five-page dogpile on the OP?

Not that I agree with getting offended at things on the internet, but it's not nearly so hard to believe as you seem to think that the language used in the thread title would be seen by some as inflammatory or insulting.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thanks a lot for the personal insult, my so-called friend.

This is like the second time in a week or so that you've found "personal insults" where you weren't being talked about or to. Are you, like, ok? Something stressing you out that you're bringing to the forum?

Nope. I'm just pointing out that there's something that friends shouldn't bring up where their friends are around because it will cause too much fighting to be worth it and doing it is kind of a douche move. That kind of response doesn't happen often enough on this board. The subject is one that only exists to cause fights, so it's better to call out the fact it was posted at all than to actually discuss it.

[fgalkin]

Thanks a lot for the personal insult, my so-called friend.

This is like the second time in a week or so that you've found "personal insults" where you weren't being talked about or to. Are you, like, ok? Something stressing you out that you're bringing to the forum?

Here's a fun thought experiment. Let's start a thread about the beheading in London and call it "Average Muslim Responds to Criticism of his Religion," then hide behind 'it was just hyperbole/sarcasm!' I wonder how long until THAT thread gets HoS'd after a five-page dogpile on the OP?

Not that I agree with getting offended at things on the internet, but it's not nearly so hard to believe as you seem to think that the language used in the thread title would be seen by some as inflammatory or insulting.

Good point. Apologies are in order.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Broomstick]

Getting back to the incident(s), though - my first thought was "that is NOT the way to convince the government to leave gun owners alone".

>sigh< I wish we could inject some sanity into the US 2nd amendment. While I do support the right of responsible, well-behaved, and law-abiding citizens to own weaponry, just as one might own other potentially dangerous items, it's not an unlimited right and there should be some regulation to ensure that those exercising their weapon rights do not needlessly endanger anyone else (aside from lawful self-defense). I don't this the current situation is at all ideal.

Regrettably, I'm not certain how to fix it, either.

[Simon_Jester]

Nope. I'm just pointing out that there's something that friends shouldn't bring up where their friends are around because it will cause too much fighting to be worth it and doing it is kind of a douche move. That kind of response doesn't happen often enough on this board. The subject is one that only exists to cause fights, so it's better to call out the fact it was posted at all than to actually discuss it.

Gun control debate/fights are stressful for some here, but not for others, and I'm not sure most of us are conscious of the idea of them being potentially stressful.

[Stark]

The subject of gun control only exists to cause fights? Really now? :v

And sorry, if you are personally stressed by discussions of gun control, maybe you should manage that or stay away from them. Do we need another IvP moratorium to protect people from their own inability to not post stupid crap?

I bet you have interesting things to say about god given or inalienable rights so why don't you contribute rather than blog about your hysteria?

[CarsonPalmer]

Since its the document that contains the text he referred to, I wasn't confused.

But isn't the declaration not a legal thing? It's just a big traitor manifesto, is it a part of law like the constitution and its amendments? I'm really interested in this idea that people see rights as 'god given', because not only does this show a fundamental failure of civics education but it explains why people radicalise so readily on these issues if they consider it a religious or axiomatic issue.

There is a long tradition in American history of using the Declaration of Independence as the "soul" behind the Constitution. It isn't officially a part of the lawbooks, but especially in the 19th century when American politicians were more explicit about the intellectual underpinnings of their beliefs, people went back to the DoI all the time, and that's kind of stuck around.

The biggest example of that is when Abraham Lincoln essentially made the argument that even though Dred Scott (an 1850s Supreme Court case that allowed slavery to expand into the territories, leading up to the Civil War) was technically constitutional, it was nonetheless invalid because it conflicted with the inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. Basically, the Declaration is part of the "small-c" constitution of the US, because it's an implicit statement of political philosophy. By making specific assertions about their rights as citizens, and by making specific complaints about King George's actions, the authors implied certain things about what a government should and should not be able to do. No quartering troops on private citizens, no taxation without representation, and so on.

So while the Declaration has no legal force, citing it is sort of... like the practical version of quoting Locke or someone like him.

The catch is that for an ignorant person who doesn't know or want to learn the context, any random string of words from the Declaration can be used to justify anything. The same thing happens, on a lesser scale, with quotes from perfectly random people, as long as they sound nice if you're smug and stupid about them.

[Broomstick]

Part of the ignorance problem is that a LOT of these yahoos haven't actually read the documents in question themselves. They're quoting what someone else told/taught them about it.