Thread: So find a bullet-hole ridden shirt tacked to your front door....

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

True that, I have a ton of pics of myself shooting an SKS assult rifle in the woods.

Hmmm... are you supporting 505's position or mine?


jk. truce!

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Nice Internet bravado, btw.

*bows*

Hyperbole suggests it's unlikely. There's a growing thread about a news story in which this essentially happened to the President.

The scenario postulated in the OP is not really an apt comparison to the article in the thread it quoted.
In this thread, the culprit himself is in personal contact (however indirect) with the suggested target.
In the other article, the culprits (the kids with guns) shot a target and had their picture taken with it. That picture was then posted on a quasi-private website, presumably with his friends, family, and personal contacts.
It's really no different than passing on an email forward or something of that nature.
The subject matter of the photograph alone does not, in my opinion, constitute a real threat to anyone.

No, because that's a common expression of dislike that doesn't imply murder.

Murder is not implied by using an image of a person on a shooting range any more than assault is implied when you tack your boss' picture to a dartboard.
Again, hyperbole.

You're so eager to defend the rights of idiots bragging about using a photo of the African American president as a target. Why?

Who bragged? Some cop posted (or re-posted) a photograph to share with his friends. I'd defend the right of anyone to do that (unless it's like..child pornography or something), as well as use whatever they choose as target practice.

It would be different if we were talking about a group of people who had like, made a life-size model of the president and were practicing rifle shots from different angles and distances, but come on...this just looks like some kids had target practice. While it may be distasteful (as well as a waste of a perfectly good shirt) it seems unreasonable to me to extrapolate a viable threat from that.

Originally Posted by sparsely

*bows*



The scenario postulated in the OP is not really an apt comparison to the article in the thread it quoted.
In this thread, the culprit himself is in personal contact (however indirect) with the suggested target.
In the other article, the culprits (the kids with guns) shot a target and had their picture taken with it. That picture was then posted on a quasi-private website, presumably with his friends, family, and personal contacts.
It's really no different than passing on an email forward or something of that nature.
The subject matter of the photograph alone does not, in my opinion, constitute a real threat to anyone.


Murder is not implied by using an image of a person on a shooting range any more than assault is implied when you tack your boss' picture to a dartboard.
Again, hyperbole.

Who bragged? Some cop posted (or re-posted) a photograph to share with his friends. I'd defend the right of anyone to do that (unless it's like..child pornography or something), as well as use whatever they choose as target practice.

It would be different if we were talking about a group of people who had like, made a life-size model of the president and were practicing rifle shots from different angles and distances, but come on...this just looks like some kids had target practice. While it may be distasteful (as well as a waste of a perfectly good shirt) it seems unreasonable to me to extrapolate a viable threat from that.

How about if a business owner shot this President on private property....say at their segregated lunch counter..... Would that be ok?
after all...you & Rand Paul think just about anything is legal on your own property, right?

Originally Posted by sparsely

*bows*

Do you know what "internet bravado" means? Seems apt, too, since you don't vote "no" in the poll.

The scenario postulated in the OP is not really an apt comparison to the article in the thread it quoted.

This thread and its poll aren't about the article in the other thread. They're based on a specific claim made in thread.

Murder is not implied by using an image of a person on a shooting range any more than assault is implied when you tack your boss' picture to a dartboard.
Again, hyperbole.

Good. I'm glad the kids aren't likely to go shoot a Congressman at a shopping center or the Obama supporters at their high school. I'm glad they were cleared by Secret Service.

Who bragged?

The kids in the photo.

Originally Posted by Rasselas

....and the shirt has a picture of your face on it. Do you call the police? This poll follows up on a discussion of this post: Bullet holes in Obama T-Shirt

Has anyone nailed a bullet hole laden shirt with the Kenyan's face on it to the front door of the White House?

If so, shouldn't the Secret Service be fired?

Has anyone told you that vandalism (the act of nailing something to someone else's front door without their leave) is a misdemeanor in most places?

Originally Posted by Rasselas

Lethality.

Darts are lethal. An accurate thrower like the Mayor could certainly put both eyes out, and nailing the carotid artery or jugular veins isn't difficult either, except they're difficult to see in a dimly lit bar.

But hell, just put a little curare on them and they're as lethal as a bullet.

Its funny watching the lefties getting so freaked out by a red-neck T-shirt.