Conservative hero calls for Democrats, Liberals to be shot

fuelair said:
I'm clearly on the left and would love to see every terrorist of ANY religion or idiot related all over the earth flayed slowly and hung up to dry and flutter in the wind wherever it was found.
Click to expand...

Can I have an AMEN? :thumbsup:
 
fuelair said:
I'm clearly on the left and would love to see every terrorist of ANY religion or idiot related all over the earth flayed slowly and hung up to dry and flutter in the wind wherever it was found.
Click to expand...

There’s a very famous rocker who has said the same thing, funny that!
 
A man that talks like that ain't no better than a coyote. A man needs to act more civilized than that if he expects to be treated like a civilized human instead of a slobbering varmint.

See, it's not that hard. I could have said something, if you know what I mean. But if I really said it, the mods would delete it, unless I laid it between the lines.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
I was just trying to explain the legal aspect, as seen by an ex-street cop.

We would have to decide, on the scene, if a crime was committed, and if so, whether we could and should affect an arrest.

Man says, “Touch my wife again and I’m going to shoot you in the face.” Not a crime - conditional threats are not a crime.

Man says the same thing while pointing a gun at the victim - Aggravated Assault.

Man says the same thing while resting his hand on a holstered weapon? Or putting his hand in his pocket and implying there’s a gun? Enough to affect an arrest, but edge cases where a District Attorney would have to decide whether the victim’s fear was “reasonable”.

Then again, man says, “Pay me $500 or I’m going to come back and torch this place!” That’s conditional, but has the elements of another crime.

My point was people were assuming what Nugent said was a crime, or actionable. Probably not, though the specifics could vary from state to state.

In Florida:

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree,
Click to expand...

You're focusing on the 'assault' portion. I think perhaps a discussion of these statutes
The 2017 Florida Statutes said:
876.34 Combination to usurp government.—If two or more persons shall combine by force to usurp the government of this state, or to overturn the same, or interfere forcibly in the administration of the government or any department thereof, the person so offending shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree and punished as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 5, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2374; GS 3199; RGS 5029; CGL 7131; s. 704, ch. 71-136; s. 65, ch. 74-383.
Note.—Former s. 779.03.
876.35 Combination against part of the people of the state.—If two or more persons shall combine to levy war against any part of the people of this state, or to remove them forcibly out of this state, or to remove them from their habitations to any other part of the state by force, or shall assemble for that purpose, every person so offending shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2375; GS 3200; RGS 5030; CGL 7132; s. 705, ch. 71-136; s. 65, ch. 74-383.
Note.—Former s. 779.04.
876.36 Inciting insurrection.—If any person shall incite an insurrection or sedition amongst any portion or class of the population of this state, or shall attempt by writing, speaking, or by any other means to incite such insurrection or sedition, the person so offending shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 3, ch. 1466, 1866; RS 2376; GS 3201; RGS 5031; CGL 7133; s. 706, ch. 71-136; s. 65, ch. 74-383.
Note.—Former s. 779.05.
Click to expand...

With a dash of
876.40 Attempts.—Whoever attempts to commit any of the crimes defined by this law shall be liable to one-half the punishment by imprisonment, or by fine, or both, as prescribed in s. 876.39 hereof. In addition to the acts which constitute an attempt to commit a crime under the law of this state, the solicitation or incitement of another to commit any of the crimes defined by this law not followed by the commission of the crime, the collection or assemblage of any materials with the intent that the same are to be used then or at a later time in the commission of such crime, or the entry, with or without permission, of a building, enclosure, or other premises of another with the intent to commit any such crime therein or thereon shall constitute an attempt to commit such crime.
History.—s. 4, ch. 20252, 1941; s. 65, ch. 74-383; s. 246, ch. 77-104.
Note.—Former s. 779.09.
Click to expand...

Might be a better argument for you to attempt to counter.

ETA: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0876/0876.html
 
Last edited:
Got me!

Those are statutes of which I had/have no familiarity. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

If similar statutes exist in the locale where Nugent made his statements, there may be some “there” there to make a case against him.

Similarly with the President’s “Second Amendment” implied threat.

But I think it’s a very slippery slope, and that’s possibly why prosecutors give a lot of latitude to such speech.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Got me!

Those are statutes of which I had/have no familiarity. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

If similar statutes exist in the locale where Nugent made his statements, there may be some “there” there to make a case against him.

Similarly with the President’s “Second Amendment” implied threat.

But I think it’s a very slippery slope, and that’s possibly why prosecutors give a lot of latitude to such speech.
Click to expand...

I'm actually mostly with you on the legal aspect for the most part.

What is more important though is that people making such statements should be roundly rejected by most civil society, and certainly never, ever be accepted in gun culture groups. This really shows the utter rot in the NRA when a stupid poacher can talk about wanting to shoot people who don't support them enough, in fact saying they SHOULD be shot, and be a member in good standing. That they're a board member...the NRA is horrible.
 
acbytesla said:
You mean getting bent out of shape about a veiled threat to having your political opponent assassinated?
Click to expand...

RecoveringYuppy said:
Are you actually saying it's fine to call for assassination of politicians?
Click to expand...

Parsman said:
Why does it mean they are against the Constitution of the USA. Still didn't make most of them want to ban guns completely, just have better controls so someone crazy couldn't listen to DJT's voice in his head and try to carry out the threat. And no-one said DJT didn't have the freedom of speech to say crazy stuff like that. However as has often been said here Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom of Consequence of Speech, and people of an opposing viewpoint have the right to attack and criticize the content of his statements. That is kind of how your Constitution works.
Click to expand...

I think you guys missed the sarcasm there.
 
How could anyone not familiar with Cain know that was sarcasm? We have people on this forum who say stuff like that seriously all the time.

If you covered up the identifying portions of the post and read it, would you automatically know it was sarcasm from Cain vs serious from logger?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
How could anyone not familiar with Cain know that was sarcasm? We have people on this forum who say stuff like that seriously all the time.

If you covered up the identifying portions of the post and read it, would you automatically know it was sarcasm from Cain vs serious from logger?
Click to expand...

These aren't new posters, here. They should be familiar with Cain by now. Including yourself.
 
thaiboxerken said:
They pretend that the threats aren't real, or are just jokes in public forums but privately, they love the threats and hope there are those among them crazy enough to pull the trigger. A good example is when Tiller was murdered in Kansas.
Click to expand...

Will no one rid me of this rid me of this meddlesome Democrat!
 
Trebuchet said:
Can you imagine the outrage from the right, including Trump, if a liberal said something like that?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, as they did when Alec Baldwin called for some congressmen and his family to be stoned to death no national television. On the other hand, that has largely been forgotten and I believe its been suggested recently that he might run for office.

I think Nugent's comments definitely cross the line into something that should be illegal, its pretty clear incitement to violence. I suspect there are quite a few conservatives that agree.

There do appear to be a lot of conservatives that have celebrity envy towards the left. They'll take pretty much any famous person no matter how repellent they might be so long as the express any conservative or right leaning opinions.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Yep he really is good at representing what gun owners really feel.
Click to expand...

I'm a gun owner. I own 5 guns. Three of which I've never fired. They are more museum pieces or collectables. One shotgun for bird hunting, and a Walther PPK that I inherited from my father.

But I wouldn't join the NRA if you paid me. I have absolutely no issue with hunting. But no one needs a semiautomatic or automatic rifle or a 14 round clip for their sidearm.
 
In related news - I'd actually thought of giving this it's own thread - the conservative blabosphere is up in arms because The Atlantic fired Kevin Williamson because he said women who have had abortions should be hung. Originally parsed by even some liberals as a hyperbolic moment, upon checking it was found that this was actually a thought-out policy belief.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/business/media/kevin-williamson-atlantic.html
 
Fast Eddie B said:
That’s as vacuous as saying “Democrats just want open borders”.

Such sweeping and hasty generalizations do not belong on a skeptical website.

IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...

Well, the NRA claim to represent gun owners.
 
Ted Nugent says something outrageous and stupid. What else is new?
When Nugent said is reprehsnbile, but I can't work up much shock over it. What can you expect from him, given his history?
 
ahhell said:
Absolutely, as they did when Alec Baldwin called for some congressmen and his family to be stoned to death no national television. On the other hand, that has largely been forgotten and I believe its been suggested recently that he might run for office.
Click to expand...
I didn't remember this one, so I went to the googles to see what I could find. Turns out, this references a bit from whatever Conan O'Brien was on 20 years ago. It was a joke that they had planned out, not a serious rant. You can tell, in case you need it spelled out, because once Baldwin hit his peak lunacy, O'Brien pulls out some kind of gas mask, wrestles it onto Baldwin, and Baldwin immediately calms down. (It's hard to make out what the gas is supposed to be due to the video being encoded for the internet 20 years ago.)

Again, this is no Law of Conservation of Partisan Hijinks.


eta source:
https://www.cnsnews.com/video/newsbusters/alec-baldwin-rant-conan-obrien-1998
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I'm a gun owner. I own 5 guns. Three of which I've never fired. They are more museum pieces or collectables. One shotgun for bird hunting, and a Walther PPK that I inherited from my father.
Click to expand...

You should definitely alter your avatar to show Tesla holding a PPK, Bond-style.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
That’s as vacuous as saying “Democrats just want open borders”.

Such sweeping and hasty generalizations do not belong on a skeptical website.

IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...

He is one of their chosen representatives. When gun owners actually make a voice against the NRA in any serious fashion they can be classified differently.
 
Upchurch said:
I didn't remember this one, so I went to the googles to see what I could find. Turns out, this references a bit from whatever Conan O'Brien was on 20 years ago. It was a joke that they had planned out, not a serious rant. You can tell, in case you need it spelled out, because once Baldwin hit his peak lunacy, O'Brien pulls out some kind of gas mask, wrestles it onto Baldwin, and Baldwin immediately calms down. (It's hard to make out what the gas is supposed to be due to the video being encoded for the internet 20 years ago.)

Again, this is no Law of Conservation of Partisan Hijinks.


eta source:
https://www.cnsnews.com/video/newsbusters/alec-baldwin-rant-conan-obrien-1998
Click to expand...
Hilarious bit.
 
ponderingturtle said:
He is one of their chosen representatives. When gun owners actually make a voice against the NRA in any serious fashion they can be classified differently.
Click to expand...
It should also be noted that in addition to his position with the NRA, he is also attached to the Republican party. There are pictures of Nugent visiting Trump in the white house, and performed at multiple Trump election rallies.

Compare that to Kathy Griffin (Remember her?)... the republicans made a huge stink over her photo holding a fake severed head that looked like Trump, despite the fact that she had no political power and was not associated at all with Clinton's campaign.
 
theprestige said:
Yes. Your sado-sexual revenge porn fantasies are something of a fixture here.
Click to expand...

I do note with interest that I do not list any such that are actually sex oriented, but if someone else sees/interprets such, it may well say something about their thought patterns.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
How could anyone not familiar with Cain know that was sarcasm? We have people on this forum who say stuff like that seriously all the time.

If you covered up the identifying portions of the post and read it, would you automatically know it was sarcasm from Cain vs serious from logger?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think that is part of Cain's point.
 
Once again, I find it hard to be outraged because I wrote Nugent off as a nutcase a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom