Democrat Congresswoman Calls Millions Of Americans "Domestic Security Threats"

A threat to the security of a tyrannical government. Not a threat to one that operates lawfully and respects the rights of the people. Kinda big difference. Do you even Declaration of Independence bro? :D

Between 2008 and 2016 there were millions of Americans foaming at the mouth and claiming that neither of those things were occurring.

But I'm glad that now that we're back on the "right track" they have put their guns back in their lockers.
 
Without question this is taking place, but it's especially disconcerting when the perpetrator is a congresswoman.
It would be more worrisome if it were a Senator, tbh. Most Congressmen are jokes. See my edit to my previous post, I find the NRA video to be much more inflammatory and far reaching than a lowly Congressperson.
 
Given that this congresswoman also claims that Dana herself is complicit in these threats, I think we need more evidence than what's available from needing to read between the lines. At the very least, if you're saying that they're not overt threats, the accusation shouldn't be presented as if they are. Being a domestic security threat is a strong charge.
She said they were becoming a domestic security threat, not that they are currently domestic security threats. Significant difference. Words matter.
 
It's not about how anyone feels. The message is clear as day.

Oh whatever. Point out where there's an actual call to violence using the script from the "clenched fist of truth" add.

"They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance.

"All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

"And when that happens, they'll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I'm the National Rifle Association of America, and I'm freedom's safest place."
 
Compared to who?

The NRA and my fellow members should be the least of her concern . . .
Nah. In all probability you and the rest of the redneck brigade are more likely to kill an American than anything else. Penile extensions are a deadly serious business in gun form.
 
That the NRA will continue to fight through legal means just as they've always done?
No, they they think the 1st amendment sucks, and now more than ever people need to be ready to shoot people that they disagree with politically. That's the only honest interpretation of the message.

But, this is going to end up just like the arguments about when Trump said that the 2nd Amendment people could do something about Hilary if she got elected. It was indisputably a, "wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean" statement implying that political violence is acceptable if it's against enemies. This is identical.
 
Oh whatever. Point out where there's an actual call to violence using the script from the "clenched fist of truth" add.
Well it wasn't released in text, it was filled with all sort of propagandized visuals, not to mention her tone and clenched teeth inflection.
 
Oh whatever. Point out where there's an actual call to violence using the script from the "clenched fist of truth" add.
The clenched fist of truth is violence. It's also advocating for the NRA and it's supporters to have the indisputable truth on their side, and that is a very dangerous line of thinking(OBVIOUSLY).
 
She said they were becoming a domestic security threat, not that they are currently domestic security threats. Significant difference. Words matter.

Oh good grief . . . using your own comment . . . "the message is clear as day".
 
She said they were becoming a domestic security threat, not that they are currently domestic security threats. Significant difference. Words matter.

Yeah, I suppose saying one is "quickly becoming" is better than saying "they are", but if we're talking about reading between the lines, I'd say the implication doesn't see this difference as overly significant.

I'd need to see something that would incriminate Dana before agreeing that she's a threat. I mean, she's a threat like left wing pundits are a threat, in that they anger the other side, but to suggest them being a security threat should be backed by substantial evidence.
 
Wanna bet that violence is perpetrated by a gun nut against the NY Times? I'll take the opposite position.

Huh? Why can't you ever just make your point directly?

Dude. I think you may have been hit with "the clenched fist of truth" one too many times . . .

Here's the transcript of one of the ads . . . please point out the call to become violent or go after the left with violence.

Again, you have to forget that the message is coming from the NRA and play dumb.

Given that this congresswoman also claims that Dana herself is complicit in these threats, I think we need more evidence than what's available from needing to read between the lines. At the very least, if you're saying that they're not overt threats, the accusation shouldn't be presented as if they are. Being a domestic security threat is a strong charge.

There is a still a big problem even if I granted that there are multiple interpretations of the ad. It's just a numbers game. If I said that 20% of viewers interpreted that ad as a call to violence against those with different political views and 500k people saw the ad, 100k people interpret it that way.
The message is clear to me though and I find the defense of the ad pretty bizarre.
 
Well it wasn't released in text, it was filled with all sort of propagandized visuals, not to mention her tone and clenched teeth inflection.

That's weak. She looked mean when she said those evil words . . . c'mon man.
 
Again, you have to forget that the message is coming from the NRA and play dumb.


Or make crap up to fit your perceived narrative. Works both ways.
 
This is a pointless attack. What are your thoughts on the ads? Doesn't the first one particularly seem to be suggesting that criticism of the president and political disagreement more broadly should be met with violence? What's with the "theys" here? We're talking about fellow Americans.


You claimed I supported the government and murder. I did no such thing.
I'll take this as a "proud to be a threat to domestic security" confirmation. I think you guys should have tee shirts made.


So believing in the Constitution makes me a threat? Intradesting...
 
Yeah, I suppose saying one is "quickly becoming" is better than saying "they are", but if we're talking about reading between the lines, I'd say the implication doesn't see this difference as overly significant.

I'd need to see something that would incriminate Dana before agreeing that she's a threat. I mean, she's a threat like left wing pundits are a threat, in that they anger the other side, but to suggest them being a security threat should be backed by substantial evidence.
To be honest, I don't think they are domestic security threats, and I don't back the congresswoman's use of language. That doesn't change the content of the videos released by the NRA though.
 
DC vs Heller (establishing the individual right to own firearms) was absolutely judicial activism, we've been through this before. That's what we call it when you overturn 70 years of jurisprudence because you can't finish reading a sentence.

<Fedor23>


Established or confirmed? You can't point to any SCOTUS ruling that ever said otherwise. We have been through this and that's why I'm shocked that you're still repeating the ignorance I've already corrected you on. Even the federal government recognized it as a right of the people when they argued Miller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller


On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

  1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
  2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
  3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
  4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

The quibble would be over what arms are appropriate, not who can own them. And even so, SCOTUS only ruled that a tax was allowable. And it bears repeating, nobody showed up to argue against the federal government.


Between 2008 and 2016 there were millions of Americans foaming at the mouth and claiming that neither of those things were occurring.

But I'm glad that now that we're back on the "right track" they have put their guns back in their lockers.


So neither of us is concerned with armed insurrection. Cool.
 
Back
Top