Cops: Letters to NYC mayor test positive for ricin

[Pooky 3,834]

ya, are they certain it was NRA-inspired?

Surely the occupy-inspiration has a better movement for illegal weaponry, yes?

I believe the contaminated correspondence alluded to an NRA connection. The proof will only come out when they catch the perpetrator(s).

Maybe this time it will turn out to be a Homer Simpson impersonator.

[GandD 5,966]

Yes ban guns. stop this kind of stuff. Wait it was poison.

Btw, no one died Edited May 31, 2013 by GandD

[RGinWA 816]

Yes ban guns. stop this kind of stuff. Wait it was poison.

Um....nobody even suggested banning guns. Why does the argument always run to that end?

It's like not allowing texting while driving...does it mean they want my phone?

In many many ways, the phone has actually saved more lives and is actually better at protection. So where is the outrage on phone rights?

There's no common sense in this debate, its all or nothing.

[james&olya 1,121]

Um....nobody even suggested banning guns. Why does the argument always run to that end?

It's like not allowing texting while driving...does it mean they want my phone?

In many many ways, the phone has actually saved more lives and is actually better at protection. So where is the outrage on phone rights?

There's no common sense in this debate, its all or nothing.

RWNJ's don't like nuance. They tend toward authoritarian ideologies, religions, and leaders. Things tend to be black and white, either all good or all bad!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Fascinating that one should resort to poisoning in order to stifle the debate on guns.

Especially since there is no debate to stifle. Gun control lost. There currently is no effor to implement further gun control.

However we do know that the administration provided weapons to Mexican drug cartels in order to create a reason to promote more US gun controls. We know that the administration will abuse the 4th amendment and first amendment for political gain. Could this be Eric Holder trying a new technique?

Still waiting for the link that connects this to the NRA in any way.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Um....nobody even suggested banning guns. Why does the argument always run to that end?

It's like not allowing texting while driving...does it mean they want my phone?

In many many ways, the phone has actually saved more lives and is actually better at protection. So where is the outrage on phone rights?

There's no common sense in this debate, its all or nothing.

There is no argument. There is no debate.

[Penguin_ie 5,997]

*** topic title edited. You know better *****

[GandD 5,966]

Um....nobody even suggested banning guns. Why does the argument always run to that end?

It's like not allowing texting while driving...does it mean they want my phone?

In many many ways, the phone has actually saved more lives and is actually better at protection. So where is the outrage on phone rights?

There's no common sense in this debate, its all or nothing.

Nearly every thread in P&R will touch the gun debate at some point. Just roll with it.

[JohnR! 5,495]

There currently is no effor to implement further gun control.

Which makes it all the more inane that one should resort to terrorism for a non-existent cause.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Gegel

[JohnR! 5,495]

Which makes it all the more inane that one should resort to terrorism for a non-existent cause.

Here is the text of the letter. A fine concoction of bad grammar, mythical overtones and complete unfamiliarity with the US Constitution.

"You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will be shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional God-given right and I will exercise that right 'til the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you."

What is also laughable is that whoever posted the letter from Shreveport believed it to be enough to direct an investigation away from their place of abode.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here is the text of the letter. A fine concoction of bad grammar, mythical overtones and complete unfamiliarity with the US Constitution.

"You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will be shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional God-given right and I will exercise that right 'til the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you."

What is also laughable is that whoever posted the letter from Shreveport believed it to be enough to direct an investigation away from their place of abode.

I don't see how that could possibly be inspired by anything the NRA said.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I don't see how that could possibly be inspired by anything the NRA said.

[GandD 5,966]

I don't see how that could possibly be inspired by anything the NRA said.

Ha, he looks like that guys from the Burbs.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Um....nobody even suggested banning guns. Why does the argument always run to that end?

It's like not allowing texting while driving...does it mean they want my phone?

In many many ways, the phone has actually saved more lives and is actually better at protection. So where is the outrage on phone rights?

There's no common sense in this debate, its all or nothing.

No it is not at all like that. Restricting the use of your phone would be like restricting the use of firearms. You cannot shoot your firearm while driving. You are allowed to keep your phone in your pocket while driving and you should be allowed to keep your gun in your pocket while driving. Agreed? Same thing, right? What is being proposed is more like banning CELL phones, but not other phones. No one is suggesting we ban phones...just cell phones. Or maybe just ban texting cabability. Too dangerous.

Lets take some other examples since you don't get it.

Lets say that congress proposed banning Islam because it is the preferred religion of terrorists. No one is suggesting banning religion, just Islam. It is a bad religion since some Muslims commit terror. Is that OK with you? Does that make sense?

Let's say that we make your emails open for the government to read because terrorists use email. No one is suggesting we take away your privacy...except for emails. Just emails. Is that OK with you? Does that make sense?

what if we ban just bad books? Is that OK with you?

here is my feeling on gun control...

NO COMPROMISE. None. You get nothing And every time you try for something, you lose ground. I have the same feeling about ALL our rights. For everyone. Not just the ones I like or use myself. ALL. For EVERYONE.

Even with this simple explanation I do not expect you to "get it". So instead I will use political pressure on legislators, litigation in courts. I will work to make it impossible to restrict our rights, as you have recently witnessed.

In one week Illinois will have concealed carry, forced by litigation because their politicians did not respect our rights. We can do this 6 ways from Sunday and y'all can just watch.

Me either. That's why the title was changed.

I don't see how that could possibly be inspired by anything the NRA said.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Gary and Alla

[RGinWA 816]

No it is not at all like that. Restricting the use of your phone would be like restricting the use of firearms. You cannot shoot your firearm while driving. You are allowed to keep your phone in your pocket while driving and you should be allowed to keep your gun in your pocket while driving. Agreed? Same thing, right? What is being proposed is more like banning CELL phones, but not other phones. No one is suggesting we ban phones...just cell phones. Or maybe just ban texting cabability. Too dangerous.

Lets take some other examples since you don't get it.

Lets say that congress proposed banning Islam because it is the preferred religion of terrorists. No one is suggesting banning religion, just Islam. It is a bad religion since some Muslims commit terror. Is that OK with you? Does that make sense?

Let's say that we make your emails open for the government to read because terrorists use email. No one is suggesting we take away your privacy...except for emails. Just emails. Is that OK with you? Does that make sense?

what if we ban just bad books? Is that OK with you?

here is my feeling on gun control...

NO COMPROMISE. None. You get nothing And every time you try for something, you lose ground. I have the same feeling about ALL our rights. For everyone. Not just the ones I like or use myself. ALL. For EVERYONE.

Even with this simple explanation I do not expect you to "get it". So instead I will use political pressure on legislators, litigation in courts. I will work to make it impossible to restrict our rights, as you have recently witnessed.

In one week Illinois will have concealed carry, forced by litigation because their politicians did not respect our rights. We can do this 6 ways from Sunday and y'all can just watch.

Me either. That's why the title was changed.

Its about checking who's getting a gun...not taking anything away from anyone?

I have a concealed weapon permit, but to get that permit I had a background check done. I didn't think twice about it because that's a reasonable expectation.

I don't know what the big deal is? To get an apartment they do more of a check on people?