HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Republican Yard Sign Thei...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 02:31 AM

Republican Yard Sign Theives Cite Second-Amendment/Gun Agenda As Rationale

Posted: Monday, November 5, 2012 9:51 pm | Updated: 12:08 am, Tue Nov 6, 2012.
Posted on November 5, 2012
By Max Wintiz

SARASOTA, Fla. - In one of the more unusual stories this election season, a thief who stole a woman's campaign yard signs, writes her a postcard explaining why he did it.

On two occasions, the Barack Obama and Keith Fitzgerald signs were taken from the yard of Jill Green, a resident in the Indian-Beach/Sapphire Shores neighborhood in Sarasota.

"I don't have any idea who it could be," Green said.

She then received a postcard in her mailbox. On the front of the card, there is a picture of Obama and Ronald Reagan. Under the picture of Reagan, the word, "Hero." Under Obama, the word, "Zero." On the back of the card, the person wrote this:



More: http://www.mysuncoast.com/news/local/article_ce92c57a-27bc-11e2-ba0b-0019bb30f31a.html

My question to you: do you think the ideas espoused in the postcard regarding Democrats/gun control advocates are acceptable political speech regarding gun policy if the individual were to not have absconded with this persons yard signs?



31 replies, 2976 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Republican Yard Sign Theives Cite Second-Amendment/Gun Agenda As Rationale (Original post)
ellisonz Nov 2012 OP
jenw2 Nov 2012 #1
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #4
Rincewind Nov 2012 #8
Webster Green Nov 2012 #10
oneshooter Nov 2012 #30
Webster Green Nov 2012 #31
ileus Nov 2012 #13
Union Scribe Nov 2012 #12
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #20
petronius Nov 2012 #2
gejohnston Nov 2012 #7
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #14
petronius Nov 2012 #25
Warpy Nov 2012 #3
gejohnston Nov 2012 #5
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #6
bluerum Nov 2012 #9
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #11
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #15
krispos42 Nov 2012 #16
ellisonz Nov 2012 #18
krispos42 Nov 2012 #19
ellisonz Nov 2012 #22
PavePusher Nov 2012 #28
Clames Nov 2012 #26
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #27
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #17
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #21
rrneck Nov 2012 #23
Common Sense Party Nov 2012 #24
PavePusher Nov 2012 #29

Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 02:37 AM

1. Criminals often break into places looking for guns

 

That's why people that have NRA or other pro-violence group stickers on their cars have more break-ins. Telling the public that you don't own guns by putting up Obama signs is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 02:45 AM

4. I can see that your stay here at DU will be an ...interesting one.

I doubt, however, that it will be a long one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:03 AM

8. I have an Obama sign,

and I also have guns. In fact, most of the Democrats that I know own guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rincewind (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:37 AM

10. Yep indeedy!

Me and all my hippie/commie democratic voting friends are armed quite nicely. There are many veterans in that group, including myself.

Wing-nuts make a serious mistake if they think all liberals and democrats are unarmed pacifists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Webster Green (Reply #10)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:31 PM

30. According to some that post on this site, you are not "True Democrats" if you own firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #30)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 04:20 PM

31. Oh, I've got all kinds of tools.

Some of them just sit there and rarely get used, but I would never sell them.

If I got rid of a tool, it would likely turn out to be the next thing I need. (Murphy's Law)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rincewind (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 07:01 AM

13. I have a Obama bumper sticker and I own guns.

This morning I'm going heavy. My M&P with an extended 17 rounder, and 4 12 rounders for backup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 05:49 AM

12. Citation for the break-in claim? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jenw2 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:43 AM

20. Hence the constant robberies of gun stores.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 02:37 AM

2. I'm a lot more offended by the journalist's tenous grasp of US history:

If you recall television shows in the 1950's, Bat Masterson was a program on NBC.


Read a book, journalist person!!11!!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #2)


Response to petronius (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 08:25 AM

14. There was a TV Western in the 1950s titled, "Bat Masterson".

Of course, he was a real person of the Old West. He returned East to become a sports writer covering boxing. He would sometimes buy a used .45 Peacemaker and sell it to some unsuspecting person as a gun that he had used in a shootout. The irony is that all of those "fake" guns are now valuable collector's items due to their connection with Bat Masterson, if the connection can be proven. Some of the suckers that bought the guns kept the bill of sale and passed it on to their decendents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:42 AM

25. I know there was, I just think the fact that that's what the writer chose

to use as the 'explanatory' point is worthy of ridicule...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 02:42 AM

3. Whoever stole the signs is a common thief and should be seen as such

That idiotic postcard is contradicted by the facts: gun laws have been liberalized under Obama. Tighter restriction has not happened. The guy is a nut and a thief and is trying to blame the NRA for the fact that he's a pimple on the ass of the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 02:46 AM

5. What?

My question to you: do you think the ideas espoused in the postcard regarding Democrats/gun control advocates are acceptable political speech regarding gun policy if the individual were to not have absconded with this persons yard signs?
My answer is that it is a pretty stupid rant. The writer sounds like an idiot who stereotypes Democrats and liberals as two dimensional stock characters in a poorly written novel. Obviously he or they don't realize there are conservative and Republican gun control advocates like Rudy Guiliani, Sly Stallone, or Paul Helmke.
Since I don't know of anyone here who have said any such thing here, I'm really missing your point. Are you asking if it is acceptable speech in DU or in the world at large? Skinner et al decides the first, the 1A decides the second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 02:48 AM

6. Of course it's "acceptable political speech". Undeniably sociopathic, but acceptable.

That whole First Amendment thing and all that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:26 AM

9. It is obvious sarcasm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 03:48 AM

11. Calm down Elli, I have plenty of guns. Is that your concern?nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 08:28 AM

15. Please define what is "acceptable political speech",

Don't forget about the 1st Amendment.

The postcard is stupid, but stupidity is somewhat common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 08:32 AM

16. The author of the postcard...

...apparently is unaware of the fact that Obama voters have more education, on average, than Romney voters.



Both sides have people that support a stupid pro or con position. Pro-control people wage war against "assault weapons" and pro-gun people talk of "second amendment remedies". We both know that "assault weapon" is a marketing term, and that there's not going to be an armed revolution because the federal government spends too much taxpayer money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:04 AM

18. Really?

Wanting to ban (control better) assault weapons is the same as "second amendment remedies" ??? Do you realize what Sharon Angle meant when she said that?

May I remind you:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


9 SCOTUS Members agree with those statements. How many agree with the idea of "second amendment remedies" ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:34 AM

19. Because the entire argument about what is an "assault weapon" is arbitrary.

You show me a politician that wants to ban "assault weapons" and I'll show you a pander-bear. No different, logically, than people that think life begins at conception... unless it was the result of rape or incest.


"Assault weapon" is a term are used to flog political action and influence voters. Nothing more.


And I don't know what your quote proves; semiautomatic rifles are hardly "dangerous and unusual", not anymore. And there are already provisions in place to strictly regulate fully-automatic guns, and explosive devices such as grenades and artillery rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:46 AM

22. Glad to see you didn't even try...

...to defend your statement about "second amendment remedies."

Good Day, Sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #22)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:29 PM

28. Since s/he wasn't saying what you were insinuating s/he was...

 

No defense is required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #18)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 11:09 AM

26. Show where AR and AK pattern rifles are inherently.....

 

...more dangerous and unusual weapons. Your interpretation is flawed as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 11:37 AM

27. I think he's right, but for the wrong reasons.

In fact, I think I may start an OP on it. See what the community thinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 08:41 AM

17. Is there such a thing as "unacceptable political speech"?

 

do you think the ideas espoused in the postcard regarding Democrats/gun control advocates are acceptable political speech regarding gun policy if the individual were to not have absconded with this persons yard signs?

Is there such a thing as "unacceptable political speech"?

The author is probably right that a Democratic supporter is less likely to own guns than a Republican supporter, but that is about the only positive thing I can say about the thief's screed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 09:44 AM

21. The speech is acceptable political speech as we have this whole first amendment thing

 

stealing the signs was not protected by that however.

/assuming this is even real. It smacks of a hoax to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:04 AM

23. Gee, I don't know if i can withstand such a withering cross examination.



The guy that wrote that postcard is an ignorant asshole. He's making the same mistake you are. He's interpreting others based in a caricature he's created for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 10:31 AM

24. I'm calling B.S. on this. This postcard wasn't written by a Republican.

There are no misspellings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:31 PM

29. Every time I hear the phrase "acceptable political speech", my Spidy-sense tingles.

 

And not down my leg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread