2nd Amendment “solutions” redux.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/515149-republican-congressional-candidate-marjorie-taylor-greene-post-of-image-of

Sharron Angle proposed 2nd Amendment “remedies” should Harry Reid win an election in 2010.
Greene, a Q-Anon nut job, is now reviving that with her ad that was pulled, but not forgotten. Is this a “law and order” thing, or a threat against sitting Congresswomen? Or just plain stupid?

11 thoughts on “2nd Amendment “solutions” redux.

  1. RE: “Is this a “law and order” thing, or a threat against sitting Congresswomen? Or just plain stupid?”

    It could be all of the above, or something else entirely. Who cares?

    I’m more concerned that Facebook pulled the ad. Based on the copy in The Hill story, there was nothing inherently wrong with it.

    I get it that — as a private company — Facebook is entitled to censor content, but that doesn’t make it right. Clearly, Facebook is a private company that doesn’t believe in free speech.

    Like

    1. “Free speech”. There ain’t no such thing in private corporations, companies or even the home.

      (Trump’s threats to a Goodyear for not allowing campaigning by his supporters is not a free speech issue, but rather an attempt to destroy a company that didn’t kiss his ass.)

      Even so, a post that implies targeting with a gun 3 Congresswomen is, to me, a threat that should be punished as such.

      Heck, they have arrested plenty of idiots that threaten others on social media, no reason to make an exception for this looney tune, soon to be Congresswoman.

      After all, some poor, misguided man with a family no less, drove to Comet Pizza based on crap put out by InfoWars among others. And there, by the grace of God, he only shot into a closet. And I don’t think a Congressperson suggested that, but rather a plain old internet rabble rouser.

      Greene will have a lot to answer for if pot shots are taken at those three women.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You, and others here, seem to find Greene’s ad menacing. There are other interpretations. The challenge for all of you is to show why you interpret the ad as you do, and why your interpretation deserves to be taken seriously to the point of deserving priority over other intepretations.

        You face a similar burden when you claim, “There ain’t no such thing [as free speech] in private corporations, companies or even the home.” The claim is laughable on its face. You might just as well claim there is no 1st Amendment in the Constitution.

        Like

        1. Ain’t no challenge son.

          She posted a threatening ad. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.

          Tell your boss you don’t like his attitude, his pay, his wife, his politics…then see how long you keep your job.

          Bottom line is that you obviously don’t understand the First Amendment. Just like Trump when he extorted Goodyear for not letting his supporters campaign in the factory.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Interesting. Brandishing a weapon is illegal, I’m certain, in almost all 50 States. It may even be a Federal crime listed somewhere in that billion page Codes book. I’m thinking Squeaky Fromm, here.

    Consider this. Child pornography is illegal. And so is “virtual child pornography”.
    https://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/24/virtual.child.porn/index.html

    So, if I create an image using a weapon as an instrument of threat, especially to a specific person, is that brandishing? Suppose I took this image,

    and superimposed one of your profile images over the dog’s face, is tha a threat? The photo is threatening. That was the original intent. So, just like the CNN story above, the threat clearly transfers to the person whose image I use.

    In the absence of any other threatening actions or words maybe one could chalk it up as satirical, but Greene has not had such absences.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “In the state of New York, the word used for ‘brandishing’ is ‘menacing’. Law 120.14 states menacing in the second degree as:
      An individual is considered ‘menacing’ when he or she puts another in reasonable fear of physical injury or death by knowingly displaying a dangerous instrument with intent to harm. The dangerous instrument may appear to be a pistol, rifle, revolver, machine gun, shotgun or other firearm.
      If the firearm is unlicensed, loaded, in your place of residence, on your person or in your car you may face a 3.5 year automatic prison sentence. This sentence can be applied to those with no prior convictions.
      Even if you are unaware of or do not understand gun and weapon laws in the state of New York, you may still go to jail. If you possess a permit from another state without a New York permit, you can still be charged with this offense.”

      Well, now. AOC could file a complaint of “virtual menacing” in her State of residence, i.e., New York. Of course, a DA in her city or the NYAG may, or may not, follow through, but if they did, and charged Greene, then the House could use the charges not to seat Greene.

      It would go a long ways to cleaning up campaigns.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. A big difference with the National Lampoon cover is that Greene’s image doesn’t actually point a gun at anyone.

      The graphic is a simple juxtaposition of one woman with a gun with three women who are known to collaborate. You could say the comparison/contrast is purely ideological, which places the ad squarely within the boundaries of acceptable political speech.

      Like

      1. It’s not Lampoon’s cover. It was funny then, still funny now.

        It’s New York’s law, specifically, “The dangerous instrument may appear to be a pistol, rifle, revolver,…”

        It all depends on the word “appears”. For example, CGI certainly fits a definition of “appears”.

        The fact that Greene doesn’t actually “point” the weapon, well, ask Doc. I believe that, for example, just showing a weapon could be a violation of Virginia’s brandishing law. You don’t need to point it. Hell, c,mon Doc, tell us, “Could just showing a holstered weapon be considered brandishing?” Opening a jacket with the intent of displaying, for example.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s