Rhonda Fields gets threatened

[Dave_L]

He was arrested for "attempting to influence a public official."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that. He should have known better than to use words for that. Money is the only thing that works...and gets overlooked.

[Cthulhu]

I was thinking that... what if it was this guy threatening to push for her to be recalled, or not elected again in '14? What if there was no viable threat on her life? If that's the case then we're in deep doodoo...

In any case they will use this to make us all look like violent psychopaths bent on destruction and chaos. The control the left has over the media to spread propaganda is truly amazing. Sadly, most people have broken "bullshit detectors".

[pumpgun]

I did not see anything in the article that explains what kind of threat he made other than saying left voice messages and sent emails. No meat and taters I could see. I'm thinking this one is total BS
tom

[newracer]

I wonder if the increased protection for her includes firearms with magazines greater than 15 rounds.

[Bailey Guns]

Officially, and for the record, I don't condone threatening politicians.

Having said that, I don't give a rat's ass what happens to some tyrannical politician intent on subverting the Constitution and my liberties and freedoms as an American.

[DHC]

I need to be sure to state it up-front - THIS IS PURELY A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION! (that follows). I am in NO WAY suggesting ANY actions to ANYONE, but am curious about something.

Disclaimer now stated.

What would be the reaction to having some targets printed up with photos of our 'favorite' Dems in place of the normal photos?

If someone were to take videos of target practice on such modified target, would it (could it) be perceived as a threat of any sort?

I think of it as the contemporary equivalent of pasting a photo on a dart board - BUT - with all the paranoia running rampant, I wonder if LE would consider it harmless or threatening?

Is there any precedent?

[Byte Stryke]

correct me if I am wrong, but as the United States was declared a Battlefield by the 2012 NDAA, aren't we shooting traitors under Article I?
As far as I know, wartime suspends article III trials (Constitutional) regarding treason.

[Dave_L]

I need to be sure to state it up-front - THIS IS PURELY A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION! (that follows). I am in NO WAY suggesting ANY actions to ANYONE, but am curious about something.

Disclaimer now stated.

What would be the reaction to having some targets printed up with photos of our 'favorite' Dems in place of the normal photos?

If someone were to take videos of target practice on such modified target, would it (could it) be perceived as a threat of any sort?

I think of it as the contemporary equivalent of pasting a photo on a dart board - BUT - with all the paranoia running rampant, I wonder if LE would consider it harmless or threatening?

Is there any precedent?

Ignoring the amount of win in that theory, I think it'd be bad right now. The lefties have the media in their corner and they get to say how things look. A simple headline makes the sheeple start marching to their tune. "Gun nuts pretend to gun down state reps". Not good.

However, Youtube can be powerful. A video where people that, purely by coincidence, look just like our dem leaders are shooting up copies of the constitution while laughing could become viral. Of course, it'd be best to make it an infomercial for us too. Show all the true statistics of gun violence (or lack there of) and pick apart all the arguments that are plastered on the left's media outlets.

[10mm-man]

I need to be sure to state it up-front - THIS IS PURELY A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION! (that follows). I am in NO WAY suggesting ANY actions to ANYONE, but am curious about something.

Disclaimer now stated.

What would be the reaction to having some targets printed up with photos of our 'favorite' Dems in place of the normal photos?

If someone were to take videos of target practice on such modified target, would it (could it) be perceived as a threat of any sort?

I think of it as the contemporary equivalent of pasting a photo on a dart board - BUT - with all the paranoia running rampant, I wonder if LE would consider it harmless or threatening?

Is there any precedent?

Kinda like the ones posted of; pregnant women, old guys, kids? i thought about this also; include some DHS Agents, FBI, politicians, U.N peace keepers, etc..... $$$ maker million dollar idea there! Like stated above how about add a target with the Constitution on it.... Shit were does one stop with the possibilities!!

[Zundfolge]

I need to be sure to state it up-front - THIS IS PURELY A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION! (that follows). I am in NO WAY suggesting ANY actions to ANYONE, but am curious about something.

Disclaimer now stated.

What would be the reaction to having some targets printed up with photos of our 'favorite' Dems in place of the normal photos?

If someone were to take videos of target practice on such modified target, would it (could it) be perceived as a threat of any sort?

I think of it as the contemporary equivalent of pasting a photo on a dart board - BUT - with all the paranoia running rampant, I wonder if LE would consider it harmless or threatening?

Is there any precedent?

That is such an unbelievably bad idea I'm surprised some anti gun groups haven't staged such videos yet and posted them on youtube (Racist rednecks with guns shooting Rep Fields in effigy! Film at 11!)


Hell, Republicans were pilloried for using posters with gun sights over targeted congressional districts in other states and said posters used to blame them for the shooting of Gabby Giffords.


For Chrissake, I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrat activists murder their own Democrat politicians as a means of discrediting conservatives, libertarians and the gun rights movement.

We certainly don't need to feed the beast with our own discussion of even thinking about symbolically shooting pictures of Democrat politicians.