Rep. Cruz should be hung from the tree of Liberty?

I don't see the problem with it. Liberals from stoned protesters all the way up to college professors have called for Bush to be hung, I see no difference. It just seems that some speach/speakers are more free than others.

Besides, if it had said he should be lynched, it would be one thing; but his sign calls for Cruz to be hung from a figurative tree. Far less threatening than what libs call for against Bush.
 
I don't see the problem with it. Liberals from stoned protesters all the way up to college professors have called for Bush to be hung, I see no difference. It just seems that some speach/speakers are more free than others.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they generally don't win many reasonable people over to their side by doing so. Which matters little, since the chances of getting rid of Bush (through, say, impeachment) are pretty slim regardless of whether they influence hearts and minds. The chances of us keeping our firearms rights relatively intact, on the other hand, aren't nearly so bad. But they do go down when people like this make us look like...well, people like this.

Besides, if it had said he should be lynched, it would be one thing; but his sign calls for Cruz to be hung from a figurative tree. Far less threatening than what libs call for against Bush.
Click to expand...

Of course it could be worse. But it still makes them look like they put the "nuts" in gun nuts. I'm not proud to be associated with them.
 
Of course it could be worse. But it still makes them look like they put the "nuts" in gun nuts. I'm not proud to be associated with them.
Click to expand...
But they do go down when people like this make us look like...well, people like this.
Click to expand...

How much do you want to bet that people said the same thing about the Boston Tea Party?

At least they were out protesting. Getting conservative/republican types out to protest is like pulling teeth.

What have you done for your 2nd today?
 
Two men stunned onlookers by raising the banner criticizing Democratic Rep. Angel Cruz, sponsor of a bill that would create a registry of gun owners and require people to pay a yearly $10 fee for each gun or face state police confiscation of their weapons. Cruz should be "hung from the tree of liberty for treasonous acts against the Constitution," the sign read.
Click to expand...

So this is simply one more attempt to confiscate private property through the non payment of onerous taxes -- except this ti,me toe confiscation wil be of property that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Angry lawmakers criticized the sign brought by Alan Kiser, of Warren County, as degrading and prejudicial. At an afternoon news conference, members of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus said they would report the incident to state police and Capitol Police because they considered it a death threat against Cruz, a Hispanic who is a member of the caucus.
Click to expand...

So this Hispanic legislator is a member of the Black caucus which, in the minds of those members, is an attack on a Black person and thus the "lynching" accusation to incite their base. :rolleyes:

"It's one thing to defend one's Second Amendment rights, but it's another to display a sign urging the lynching of a state House member," said caucus chairman Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland, D-Delaware County. "That goes too far and that scares many of us."
Click to expand...

They ought to be scared. The Second Amendment was put in place to insure that the people of this country could overthrow an abusive government and its minions. Why does anyone think that they are so intent on removing firearms from the hands of the general populace?
 
Jamie Young said:
Is that a terrorist threat? I think that was in bad taste and not the way represent us. I do think we can/should warn Politicians about the consequences of passing UnConstitutional laws, but there are better ways of warning them.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's a terrorist threat, but it is bad grammar.:)
 
Last edited:
Calling someone stupid, asking for their resignation, showing policy errors etc is fine. Implying someone should die broaches uncivil.

I don't even know where to FIND pitchforks and torches in this day and age.


grammer
Click to expand...

Grammar :D
 
The proper punishment for tyranny is death and hanging is perhaps the mode of execution most appropriate to that species of villainy. It is far more uncivil to act the part of the tyrant then it is to call for the just punishment of the same, and our government should perpetually fear the wrath of we the people.

Rep. Angel Cruz has boldly sponsored legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional in violation of his oath of office. It is good that he should fear for his personal safety when acting in such a manner. This legislation, by itself, is likely not egregious enough to justify the taking of his life, but our sacred liberty has been dying in small incremental pieces for decades. I can understand how a rational man might have reached that point where the burdens of government are as heavy as he can bear and to heap one more insult, however minor in appearance, might surpasses his capacity to endure. If someone where to kill Rep. Angel Cruz for sponsoring this legislation, I would not convict if empaneled on a jury to pass judgment on the act.

A man's ability to tolerate tyranny or oppression varies substantially with some men willingly accepting any insult, even slavery, to preserve their lives while other men can not abide living subject to another's will. As our government becomes increasingly tyrannical, the number of men who are compelled by conscience to desperate acts of resistance will increase until the government's oppression becomes so extensive and so unbearable that the people, as a whole, will revolt in a spontaneously effort to restore their natural freedoms. On such a day, it will be far more than a single legislator that will find himself hanging from the limb of the nearest convenient tree, it will be the entire class of politicians who have exercised their will over a free and sovereign people.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
Last edited:
Rep. Angel Cruz has boldly sponsored legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional in violation of his oath of office. It is good that he should fear for his personal safety when acting in such a manner. This legislation, by itself, is likely not egregious enough to justify the taking of his life, but our sacred liberty has been dying in small incremental pieces for decades. I can understand how a rational man might have reached that point where the burdens of government are as heavy as he can bear and to heap one more insult, however minor in appearance, might surpasses his capacity to endure. If someone where to kill Rep. Angel Cruz for sponsoring this legislation, I would not convict if empaneled on a jury to pass judgment on the act.
Click to expand...

Wow. And we wonder why the other side has such an easy time painting us as unreasonable or just downright nuts when the debate comes up. We wonder why we're slowly losing the fight...it's because when reasonable people see this, they start to wonder if the right to keep and bear arms is such a great idea after all.

If Cruz actually thinks the legislation he's drafting is constitutional, then he's doing nothing wrong. And believe it or not, he may well believe so...interpretation and all. And believe it or not it's not your job, nor the job of the hypothetical assassin, to decide if it's constitutional. We have a system for that. Both the judicial system and the election system.

Even if he knows it's unconstitutional, murder is still murder.

No Wildalaska, you needn't have said more. But I had a few minutes on my hands, so I decided to anyway.
 
Richard has done nothing wrong here. If he were on a jury and he felt that the legislation in question was unconstitutional then he could very well choose not to convict the hypotheitcal assasin. That is the right of juries.

If Cruz actually thinks the legislation he's drafting is constitutional, then he's doing nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

And if they hypothetical assasin thinks that the legislation is unconstitutional, he is meerly holding Cruz accountable for his oath of office.

Holy ****!!! And they trust you with a weapon? YIKES!!!
Click to expand...

Do you realize that that statement is the exact type of hyperbole that you are arguing(not realy an argument, more like a drive-by quip that adds no value to the conversation) against? You could have-in keeping with board rules-chose not to use profanity, but you did. You could have also-again, in keeping with board rules-not chosen to stoop to personal attacks, but you did. This Alan Kiser could have made his point in a PC fasion, but chose not to.

Besides, we are not talking about what the Secret Service would call a "credible threat". We are talking about SYMBOLICLY hanging someone from a FIGURATIVE tree. I am glad that Alan Kiser had the testicular fortitude to say that much.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top