Oh, this is a bad idea. Clinton, Sanders and OBummer targets..

[Kutnupe14]

When people believe they can violently attack me and my rights trying to go over my head and change the very foundation of the country, they're worse than Osama or any ISIS member. They belong on targets and toilet paper.

Easily the biggest threat to domestic security that exists on this planet.

I'm sure John Wilkes Booth employed the same logic.

 

[voidsherpa]

Effigies aren't covered under the first amendment anymore?

 

[HoughMade]

Effigies aren't covered under the first amendment anymore?

They probably are. My sense of propriety is not constrained simply to what is legal.

 

[historian]

This ain't Europe (yet). Anyone should be allowed to shoot at ANY target they choose. Even a picture of my Mom.

The point of target practice is to hit small targets. Therefore there is no market for targets of your mom...

 

[daddyusmaximus]

The point of target practice is to hit small targets. Therefore there is no market for targets of your mom...

Somebody's feeling the burn...

I approve of the targets. I think they're kind of tacky, even though I hate what the people depicted are doing to my country, but they also have a right to be put on a target. Shooting at a photo does not (at least yet) constitute criminal intent to harm those depicted. I made some UBL targets during my first post 9/11 deployment and we had a blast shooting them. Even shared them with a British unit. However, we really wished we were shooting the guy depicted at the time.

I even stand by the store owners right to say his place is a "no muslim zone." His business, his rules. Funny how business owners have the right to keep gun owners from carrying in their store against the 2nd amendment, but people with religious beliefs or even security concerns based on the religion of terrorists don't have the same right to choose their patrons...

 

[foszoe]

The colonists hung effigies of tax collectors and political personalities.

We shouldn't desire to be anything like them crazy people.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Somebody's feeling the burn...

I approve of the targets. I think they're kind of tacky, even though I hate what the people depicted are doing to my country, but they also have a right to be put on a target. Shooting at a photo does not (at least yet) constitute criminal intent to harm those depicted. I made some UBL targets during my first post 9/11 deployment and we had a blast shooting them. Even shared them with a British unit. However, we really wished we were shooting the guy depicted at the time.

I even stand by the store owners right to say his place is a "no muslim zone." His business, his rules. Funny how business owners have the right to keep gun owners from carrying in their store against the 2nd amendment, but people with religious beliefs or even security concerns based on the religion of terrorists don't have the same right to choose their patrons...

You "approve" or you "support the right?"

 

[BogWalker]

I notice that often on INGO when somebody disapproves of something somebody else jumps on them for wanting to make it illegal when that was never stated or implied. Is there a name for this fallacy?

 

[HoughMade]

I notice that often on INGO when somebody disapproves of something somebody else jumps on them for wanting to make it illegal when that was never stated or implied. Is there a name for this fallacy?

It's a version of the Strawman with bits of the "Black and White" mixed in.

I think it's time for a new formal, logical fallacy: "No True Ingotarian".

 

[Jludo]

The colonists hung effigies of tax collectors and political personalities.

We shouldn't desire to be anything like them crazy people.

They also tarred and feathered them, some things we can leave in the past.

 

[voidsherpa]

They also tarred and feathered them, some things we can leave in the past.

Well aren't you progressive.

 

[Jludo]

Somebody's feeling the burn...

I approve of the targets. I think they're kind of tacky, even though I hate what the people depicted are doing to my country, but they also have a right to be put on a target. Shooting at a photo does not (at least yet) constitute criminal intent to harm those depicted. I made some UBL targets during my first post 9/11 deployment and we had a blast shooting them. Even shared them with a British unit. However, we really wished we were shooting the guy depicted at the time.

I even stand by the store owners right to say his place is a "no muslim zone." His business, his rules. Funny how business owners have the right to keep gun owners from carrying in their store against the 2nd amendment, but people with religious beliefs or even security concerns based on the religion of terrorists don't have the same right to choose their patrons...

They have the right, that doesn't mean you should stand beside them and defend their practices, which are patently un American (discrimination based on religion)

 

[Jludo]

Well aren't you progressive.

And I get a lot of grief for it...

 

[Lowe0]

I notice that often on INGO when somebody disapproves of something somebody else jumps on them for wanting to make it illegal when that was never stated or implied. Is there a name for this fallacy?

It'd fall under false dichotomy - implying that there are only two possibilities.

 

[HoughMade]

Apparently if you don't support purely symbolic, do-nothing tastelessness, you're un-American.

 

[indiucky]

Don't worry nobody's going to shoot that poster of your mom on my bedroom ceiling, it's far too valuable.

How valuable??? Should I put mine on Ebay???

All joking aside what are the completed auctions going for????

 

[JettaKnight]

The colonists hung effigies of tax collectors and political personalities.

We shouldn't desire to be anything like them crazy people.

They also tarred and feathered them, some things we can leave in the past.

There are some other things we should leave in the past (say, first have of the 20th century) as well.

I even stand by the store owners right to say his place is a "no muslim zone." His business, his rules. Funny how business owners have the right to keep gun owners from carrying in their store against the 2nd amendment, but people with religious beliefs or even security concerns based on the religion of terrorists don't have the same right to choose their patrons...

 

[Drail]

"proper behavior" is one of those meaningless terms favored by churches and governments. Ask a Southern Baptist what "proper behavior" is. Then go ask a Muslim what "proper behavior" is. Meaningless.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"proper behavior" is one of those meaningless terms favored by churches and governments. Ask a Southern Baptist what "proper behavior" is. Then go ask a Muslim what "proper behavior" is. Meaningless.

Hey slow down on Southern Baptists, unless you want to be smothered in boiled peanuts and okra.

 

[foszoe]

They also tarred and feathered them, some things we can leave in the past.

While I agree with your conclusion, I don't accept the premise of equality between our two scenarios