?????

[Serk]

...but it was perfectly acceptable for Obama to say "They bring a knife, we bring a gun!"

[DK]

It would seem that anyone aspiring to the office of President of the United States of America would possess an adequate vocabulary coupled with the emotional control to express himself in a precise manner.

This man couldn't hold his own in our neighborhood poker game.

Who among you would stake him in a game with your own $$$$?

Trump simply doesn't have the emotional control to keep his mouth shut or to avoid impulsive decisions.

The poor man simply does not have what it takes to be POTUS.

[RDAbull]

The only threat here is to the 2nd amendment and it is a serious subject and threat.
Only an opportunist fool would take a statement like this as a call to arms for violent purposes.
2nd amendment supporters have the power of the checkbook, vote and properly purchased congress to offset any "Gun Grab" by the liberals.  Could that be what he was implying?
Most people who know me think I am a  pretty levelheaded reasonably intelligent kind of guy.
OK, some of you would add: for a conservative.  I have collected 4 degrees, I run 2 successful business, have taught in one of the nations top twenty undergraduate accounting programs for almost 20 years and have been a gun collector since I got my first .22 almost 60 years ago. I have never shot anybody and don't want to.  
My son is the 10th generation of my family to serve in the American Military and the last 4 generations have served as LEOs.  Most of the local LEOs are personal and professional friends.  If you expect them to come over and pick up my stuff, think again.  They are on my side as is most of the military.  I know that there are some rules that you live by and some rules that you die for.  There may well be a time that this kind of decision may be required. I hope not, but I know where my loyalties to the history of this Nation will lay.  Tiananmen Square taught us that it only takes one man to stand up for what is right to make a change.  

[Willow]

Anybody ride their Valk today?????

I did.

Isn't it interesting that people who seem to complain the most about political posts practice starting their own inflammatory threads?

I find your post amusing, Willow. I find it amusing because for every post that one of the 'libs/progs whatever' post on this forum that is considered "controversial", there are at least 10 from the other side. I never see you calling out any of the crazy batshit posts that show up here almost every day.
...

I don't like it from either side, baldo.  My preference would be there would be none of it that isn't respectful and informative, perhaps none of it at all.  Interesting that we don't involve ourselves in these differences at InZane or other face to face meetings.

However I wasn't "calling you out" for simply making a political post.  I was commenting specifically that you have complained about political posts being allowed and, if my memory serves, you even stated that you were going to move away from participating in them.  After that here you were originating a bashing political thread.

If I were to speak truthfully of what I think I believe there are a handful of posters that the welfare of the message board would be better without.  There are actually more in that handful that are on my own side politically but the list is not unique to either extreme.

Perhaps the real answer would be for us to treat one another with the same respect in typed form that we would render at a weekend gathering.  I hope we all really do know what that means.  I think most of us do but then I'm sure there are a few.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Anybody ride their Valk today?????

I did.

Isn't it interesting that people who seem to complain the most about political posts practice starting their own inflammatory threads?

I find your post amusing, Willow. I find it amusing because for every post that one of the 'libs/progs whatever' post on this forum that is considered "controversial", there are at least 10 from the other side. I never see you calling out any of the crazy batshit posts that show up here almost every day.
...

I don't like it from either side, baldo.  My preference would be there would be none of it that isn't respectful and informative, perhaps none of it at all.  Interesting that we don't involve ourselves in these differences at InZane or other face to face meetings.

However I wasn't "calling you out" for simply making a political post.  I was commenting specifically that you have complained about political posts being allowed and, if my memory serves, you even stated that you were going to move away from participating in them.  After that here you were originating a bashing political thread.

If I were to speak truthfully of what I think I believe there are a handful of posters that the welfare of the message board would be better without.  There are actually more in that handful that are on my own side politically but the list is not unique to either extreme.

Perhaps the real answer would be for us to treat one another with the same respect in typed form that we would render at a weekend gathering.  I hope we all really do know what that means.  I think most of us do but then I'm sure there are a few.

I think you are right. I've not been on one ride where everyone was not respectful of each other. I'm going to try to be like that on here. If I can't then I should probably walk away. It's not good for me or for the group to have this animosity all the time. We are going to have our differences. I'm just going to have to learn how to accept them. Thanks for the reminder. 

[indybobm]

Meathead, that should be an inspiration to a lot of people.

[baldo]

However I wasn't "calling you out" for simply making a political post.  I was commenting specifically that you have complained about political posts being allowed and, if my memory serves, you even stated that you were going to move away from participating in them.  After that here you were originating a bashing political thread.

Willow,

First of all, I don't think I'm the first or last person on this board to get sick of the political BS, and proclaim that they're done with it and end up right back in it. Sorry, I'm not perfect. I've ignored far more posts than I've gotten involved in. There's just not enough time in the day.

Second, whether you believe it or not, my post was not intended to be a 'bashing political thread' It was an honest question, expressing disbelief in all things crazy Trump. If I'm not mistaken, a pretty large percentage of non lib types here have also expressed an almost extreme disgust with Trump, but they're going to pull a lever for him because he's not Clinton. If anyone has their feelings hurt because of it, that's on them.

While we're on the subject, I invite anyone to answer this question for me. If Clinton had uttered those same words, what would your reaction be? Honestly....

[Serk]

While we're on the subject, I invite anyone to answer this question for me. If Clinton had uttered those same words, what would your reaction be? Honestly....

If I believed she really meant it, I'd be very relieved that she finally has a grasp of the true meaning and purpose and the elegant power and beauty of the 2nd amendment.

[hubcapsc]

Who among you would stake him in a game with your own $$$$?

No way!... wait - you mean I have to stake someone and I have to choose
between him and status quo?

-Mike

[solo1]

If I believed she really meant it, I'd be very relieved that she finally has a grasp of the true meaning and purpose and the elegant power and beauty of the 2nd amendment. QUOTE by Serk

 

Reference the 46th Federalist paper.

[Skinhead]

While we're on the subject, I invite anyone to answer this question for me. If Clinton had uttered those same words, what would your reaction be? Honestly....

Personally, based on her track record, I would think that she is lying.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Meathead, that should be an inspiration to a lot of people.

Thank you. But I doubt that I inspire anybody. I'm going to try to be more accepting and civil purely for my own sake and well being. And hopefully I can contribute in a positive way on the board.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Who among you would stake him in a game with your own $$$$?

No way!... wait - you mean I have to stake someone and I have to choose
between him and status quo?

-Mike

Nope, there are other choices.

[hubcapsc]

Who among you would stake him in a game with your own $$$$?

No way!... wait - you mean I have to stake someone and I have to choose
between him and status quo?

-Mike

Nope, there are other choices.

I'm going to vote for other choices in South Carolina this time around,
even if they are democrats. I can write me in if there's no choice other
than our so-called republicans. But if we can somehow manage to
elect Trump, that's going to stir up the knot-heads in Washington,
plus he'll make better Supreme Court choices than HRC. She's for
"everyone" the same way this guy likes motorcyclists...

I love motorcycles, and I love riding. Like many of you, what first drew me to bikes was not just the experience of riding, but the feeling that I'd become part of a special community—a brotherhood, really. Nothing calms me more than a long ride down the interstate, waving to the members of my beloved clan. Except when I pass Harley guys. I hate Harley guys. Hate, hate, hate. When they pass me on the highway, you know what I do? I don't wave. With their little tassle handlebars and the studded luggage and the half-helmets—God, they drive me crazy.

You know who else I hate? BMW guys. Oh, I do hate those guys. I don't wave at them, either. They think they're so great, sitting all upright, with their 180-degree German engines. God, I hate them. They're almost as bad as those old *******s on their touring motorcycles. You know what I call those bikes? "Two-wheeled couches!" Get it? Because they're so big. They drive around like they've got all day. Appreciate the scenery somewhere else, Grampa, and while you're at it, I'm not waving to you.

Ducati guys—I don't wave at them either. Why don't they spend a little more money on their bikes? "You can have it in any color you want, as long as it's red." Aren't you cool! Like they even know what a desmo-whatever engine is, anyway. Try finding the battery, you Italian-wannabe racers! I never, ever wave at those guys.

Suzuki guys aren't much better, which is why I never wave at them, either. They always have those stupid helmets sitting on top of their stupid heads, and God forbid they should wear any safety gear. They make me so mad. Sometimes they'll speed by and look over at me and you know what I do? I don't wave. I just keep on going. Please, don't get me started on Kawasaki guys. Ninjas? What are you, twelve years old? Team Green my ass. I never wave at Kawasaki guys.

I ride a Honda, and I'll only wave at Honda guys, but even then, I'll never wave at a guy in full leathers. Never, never, never. Yeah, like you're going to get your knee down on the New York Thruway. Nice crotch, by the way. Guys in full leathers will never get a wave from me, and by the way, neither will the guys in two-piece leathers. And I'll tell you who else I'm not waving at—those guys with the helmets with the loud paintjobs. Four pounds of paint on a two pound helmet–like I'm going to wave back to that! I'll also never wave at someone with a mirrored visor. Or helmet stickers. Or racing gloves. Or hiking boots.

To me, motorcycling is a like a family, a close-knit brotherhood of people who ride Hondas, wear jeans and a leather jacket (not Vanson) with regular gloves and a solid-color helmet with a clear visor, no stickers, no racing gloves and regular boots (not Timberlands). And isn't that what really makes riding so special?

-Mike

[Wizzard]

While we're on the subject, I invite anyone to answer this question for me. If Clinton had uttered those same words, what would your reaction be? Honestly....

If I believed she really meant it, I'd be very relieved that she finally has a grasp of the true meaning and purpose and the elegant power and beauty of the 2nd amendment.

Ditto 

[threevalks]

The only threat here is to the 2nd amendment and it is a serious subject and threat.
Only an opportunist fool would take a statement like this as a call to arms for violent purposes.
2nd amendment supporters have the power of the checkbook, vote and properly purchased congress to offset any "Gun Grab" by the liberals.  Could that be what he was implying?
Most people who know me think I am a  pretty levelheaded reasonably intelligent kind of guy.
OK, some of you would add: for a conservative.  I have collected 4 degrees, I run 2 successful business, have taught in one of the nations top twenty undergraduate accounting programs for almost 20 years and have been a gun collector since I got my first .22 almost 60 years ago. I have never shot anybody and don't want to.  
My son is the 10th generation of my family to serve in the American Military and the last 4 generations have served as LEOs.  Most of the local LEOs are personal and professional friends.  If you expect them to come over and pick up my stuff, think again.  They are on my side as is most of the military.  I know that there are some rules that you live by and some rules that you die for.  There may well be a time that this kind of decision may be required. I hope not, but I know where my loyalties to the history of this Nation will lay.  Tiananmen Square taught us that it only takes one man to stand up for what is right to make a change.  

Roger, that pretty well covered it. Best post on this subject.

[Willow]

While we're on the subject, I invite anyone to answer this question for me. If Clinton had uttered those same words, what would your reaction be? Honestly....  

For what it's worth the same words from Hillary Clinton would have meant the same thing that those words mean as Trump used them.  Supporters of the 2nd Amendment refers to political action or power.  Gun owners or people with guns might imply violence depending upon the context.  If I said that 19th Amendment people could stop Trump's agenda would you assume I was threatening that a mob of women might do violence to him?

It's really not credible that someone would refer to a candidate as "that fool" and declare that it is not intended to be a bashing post.

[Moonshot_1]

However I wasn't "calling you out" for simply making a political post.  I was commenting specifically that you have complained about political posts being allowed and, if my memory serves, you even stated that you were going to move away from participating in them.  After that here you were originating a bashing political thread.

Willow,

First of all, I don't think I'm the first or last person on this board to get sick of the political BS, and proclaim that they're done with it and end up right back in it. Sorry, I'm not perfect. I've ignored far more posts than I've gotten involved in. There's just not enough time in the day.

Second, whether you believe it or not, my post was not intended to be a 'bashing political thread' It was an honest question, expressing disbelief in all things crazy Trump. If I'm not mistaken, a pretty large percentage of non lib types here have also expressed an almost extreme disgust with Trump, but they're going to pull a lever for him because he's not Clinton. If anyone has their feelings hurt because of it, that's on them.

While we're on the subject, I invite anyone to answer this question for me. If Clinton had uttered those same words, what would your reaction be? Honestly....

That she is lying....again!

but honestly? Assuming the exact same context, I wouldn't interpret that as a call to violence.

Obviously the comment is easily spun to have people believe that it is a call to violence, but the problem is with the people who spin it to mean things the person did not.

[98valk]

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." -- Pres. Abraham Lincoln

[G-Man]

I'm not sorry if I offend anyone with what I am about to say, however......


If you truly believe that Trump was calling out for a hit on Clinton, YOU are the problem with what is going on with the political fiasco we've fallen into. 


 

[Gavin_Sons]

I'm not sorry if I offend anyone with what I am about to say, however......


If you truly believe that Trump was calling out for a hit on Clinton, YOU are the problem with what is going on with the political fiasco we've fallen into. 


 

no offense taken 

[The emperor has no clothes]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

[Wizzard]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

And if that is the way the majority feels,, what is anyone going to do about it?

[The emperor has no clothes]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

And if that is the way the majority feels,, what is anyone going to do about it?

I'm not sure. But just because Clinton gets elected (which I'm not pushing for) doesn't mean the 2nd Amendment is gone.

[Wizzard]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

And if that is the way the majority feels,, what is anyone going to do about it?

I'm not sure. But just because Clinton gets elected (which I'm not pushing for) doesn't mean the 2nd Amendment is gone.

If I listen to her I am certain it would not be interpreted as it is now.

Here is another impending brick wall on the horizon
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/the-big-obamacare-bubble/ar-BBvqAx3?li=BBnb7Kz

[baldo]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

Well said, meathead. I guess it's easy not to see something when you don't want to see it. I guarantee if she said the same thing, these guys would be up in arms, howling at the moon, calling for her head.

Respectfully......

[Gavin_Sons]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

Well said, meathead. I guess it's easy not to see something when you don't want to see it. I guarantee if she said the same thing, these guys would be up in arms, howling at the moon, calling for her head.

Respectfully......

Would we? or would we be shocked she actually said something pro 2nd amendment? and if she did say it and mean it why would we be up in arms? that would mean she would be agreeing with us?

[Hook#3287]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

Well said, meathead. I guess it's easy not to see something when you don't want to see it. I guarantee if she said the same thing, these guys would be up in arms, howling at the moon, calling for her head.

Respectfully......

uh, I don't think so, if Clinton said it, we wouldn't hear about it.  The bias media would have squashed it.

[Wizzard]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

Well said, meathead. I guess it's easy not to see something when you don't want to see it. I guarantee if she said the same thing, these guys would be up in arms, howling at the moon, calling for her head.

Respectfully......

uh, I don't think so, if Clinton said it, we wouldn't hear about it.  The bias media would have squashed it.

That's a pretty fair assumption according to what I have seen and read.

[The emperor has no clothes]

You guys don't really think Fox, Breitbart , Drudge Report, etc. would let her slide on anything do you ?

[Wizzard]

You guys don't really think Fox, Breitbart , Drudge Report, etc. would let her slide on anything do you ?

I should have said "main stream media"

She needs to be just as accountable for what she says as Trump does.

[The emperor has no clothes]

You guys don't really think Fox, Breitbart , Drudge Report, etc. would let her slide on anything do you ?

I should have said "main stream media"

She needs to be just as accountable for what she says as Trump does.

Agreed 
But I would say those outlets are part of the mainstream media. There is no way they are not going to jump all over something she says or does.

[Willow]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

"Paraphrased" is often a problem, meathead.  More often than not when someone paraphrases it's equivalent to, "This is not what was said but I want to believe that this is what was meant."

Paraphrasing second amendment people to people with guns is not valid.  I am a strongly committed second amendment person but didn't own any guns between 1980 and 2015.

If it were a veiled threat it would make no sense.  The claim that it was an assassination prediction is stupid.  Assassinating the standing president to avoid a Supreme Court nomination (nomination, not appointment) would only replace that president by the vice president who would make the same nominations.  How meaningless would that be?   

[The emperor has no clothes]

I take your points about paraphrasing and Second Amendment. I was trying to put it in general terms. Granted everything is not general. As far as the assassination attempt. I didn't take it that way. I took it again in general as just violence. I don't believe he is stupid. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Just as he has done before with statements such as "blood coming out her where ever" and statements about Mexican judges, birthers, David Duke, etc. He wants to make statements but not own them. I understand you see him differently. I am working on acceptance of that.

[98valk]

double standard Hillary said similar.

http://nypost.com/2008/05/24/hills-assassin-talk-a-shocker/

[MP]

double standard Hillary said similar.

http://nypost.com/2008/05/24/hills-assassin-talk-a-shocker/

You beat me to it!


“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I don’t understand it. You know, there’s lots of speculation about why it is,” she said, clearly stating that she wanted to stay in just in case someone decided to assassinate Obama.

One could "infer" that she was calling on her supporters to assassinate Obama, so then she would be left in the race for President.

Pretty close to your inference that Trump was calling on 2nd Amendment supporters to do the same.  Both wrong.

[Jess from VA]

I don't know what all the hoopla is about, anyone who would remove/subvert/steal/marginalize any of our civil liberties (short of a constitutional convention) should be convicted of treason and hung, shot, or needled.   Especially anyone who took an oath to support and defend the constitution.

Of course this would take a DOJ/AG that believes in it's oath of office.

[Willow]

... As far as the assassination attempt. I didn't take it that way. ...

I referenced the assassination threat because that is precisely the accusation that was made in the article that was linked (without paraphrasing).

[G-Man]

A veiled threat is one that is very subtle or implied, so there is no actual direct threat spoken. So, rather than "I'll kill you if you talk to him again" a veiled threat might be "It'd be a shame if that guy you were talking to had a really bad accident."

Yes he didn't come out and say "if I lose this election I want you people to commit violence"
He did say if I lose this election she will put in her justices and there is nothing you can do about it. Well maybe the people with guns can do something. (Paraphrased) that is why it's called veiled threat .

I hope my comments came across in the respectful way they were meant .

No, he didn't say the people with guns can do something.  He said 2nd Amn. Supporters can.  There are millions of supporters who do not own guns.  

And mentioning  a few things he said or did in the past does not bolster your case any.

Funny,  the guy who is supposedly calling for and provoking violence isn't the one with supporters beating and chasing innocent event attenders on the streets.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I don't know what all the hoopla is about, anyone who would remove/subvert/steal/marginalize any of our civil liberties (short of a constitutional convention) should be convicted of treason and hung, shot, or needled.   Especially anyone who took an oath to support and defend the constitution.

Of course this would take a DOJ/AG that believes in it's oath of office.

I realize you are the lawyer and I am the butcher but it doesn't appear to apply.


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)