Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
7. Before or after they follow through on the threat? We're dealing with officials being threatened.
Wed Apr 3, 2013, 08:33 PM
Apr 2013

Not that it is mentioned specifically in this poll, but it's we are seeing too many threats by fanatics against legislators who are doing their jobs.

They are carrying out the majority of voters contacting them - they are doing the will of We The People.

Those threatening them to disrupt the democratic process are criminals and should not be allowed to own firearms by the same government that made the Second Amendment.

To threaten anyone with bodily harm and most especially with a gun is not a casual thing that it has been percieved by some to be. It is not an extension of the First Amendment.

It is an act of terrorism by definition and designed to prevent the free flow of ideas, freedom of speech.

It negates the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as laid out in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

It's time for the good ol' boys to put their guns back in the case and stop demeaning others and trying to bring back the Civil War.

It's bad company to be keeping, and as a Democrat I'm certain you don't want to be counted in that number.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Oh, yeah? Well, I resent this poll and if you don't take it down I'll... tularetom Apr 2013 #1
Due process matters. As long as it is in someway fairly adjudicated ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #2
the question did NOT say if you are "accused" of making a death threat CreekDog Apr 2013 #3
I considered the question ambiguous ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #4
From one of the biggest negative-Great Equalizer Mike Bloomberg people around. graham4anything Apr 2013 #10
Gunboy from GD apparently all for guns for threateners Kingofalldems Apr 2013 #5
almost everyone voting against this is almost a non-entity outside the Gungeon CreekDog Apr 2013 #14
Depends on the situation and what the judge/jury decide. nt CokeMachine Apr 2013 #6
Before or after they follow through on the threat? We're dealing with officials being threatened. freshwest Apr 2013 #7
If it is a felony and the person is found guilty, no gunz. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #9
Note the names of who voted NO above. graham4anything Apr 2013 #11
Thanks for the civil response -- I'll give it some thought. CokeMachine Apr 2013 #13
Anyone that threatens another person's life should be considered to be unbalanced. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #8
I think it makes sense to elevate a legitimate death threat to a felony. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #12
No offence CreekDog.... defacto7 Apr 2013 #15
"It's a no-brainer." In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #16
But the people with no-brains are still saying no to anything reasonable... freshwest Apr 2013 #17
Tell me about it. In_The_Wind Apr 2013 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»If you make a death threa...»Reply #7