Does this image advocate violence or illegal behavior?

[beevul]

Poll question: Does this image advocate violence or illegal behavior?

That is the image on the back of a teeshirt.


I am not asking about how sensible or tasteful the image is, or the wearing of the shirt with that image is, I'm asking simply if it "advocates violence or illegal behavior".



Does this image advocate violence or illegal behavior?

Me? I say its something along the lines of being satirical.


Opinions on the answer to that question please.

[NewHampshireDem]

1. I've got an idea where this is going ...

and if that's the case, I think you should make that clear in your OP.

If not, you have my sincere apology.

[NaturalHigh]

2. It's a t-shirt, nothing more.

Yes, it's satirical.

[existentialist]

3. looks like a Rosarch (sp?) test to me

[apocalypsehow]

4. In what context is this image being displayed? And where?

edited to add second question.

[beevul]

5. On someones back in a public place. among hundreds of other people both adults and children. N/T.

[apocalypsehow]

7. What kind of "public place"? Like a mall? A sports arena? You see, context and location are

very important here. There are some "public places" where it is necessary to do "public business"; other "public places" folks can avoid if they don't wish to see offensive things, such as that image.

[beevul]

8. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder, and is judged by no consistant standard.

I am not asking if it offends.

I'm asking simply if it "advocates violence or illegal behavior". Or if maybe its just a teeshirt...


Unless you can show me how it iether doing or not doing that might change based on surroundings, I guess I don't follow you.

[apocalypsehow]

10. I guess you don't follow simple interrogative inquiries, at least not very well. I'll try again:

What. Kind. Of. "Public." "Place." Is. This. Image. Being. Displayed. In?

Better?

[apocalypsehow]

12. Okay, I've got to go watch "John Adams" on HBO. Be very interested to see if you ever answer.

Later.

[beevul]

13. Id be happy to...

As soon as you can explain to me what effect different places might have on the shirt containing the message either advocating violence and/or illegal behavior...or not.

For instance, IF someone were to wear it to a post office...would the state of whether or not the shirt advocates anything at all or not - be different than at a shopping mall, or a restrant, or a high school, or a college, or a pet store, or a hair parlour or the kentucky derby?


Explain to me how or why those places...just the places I mentioned there, might change whether the shirt advocates anything or not.

Once you do that, I'll be happy to tell you more.

[apocalypsehow]

14. So, your answer is "no." That tells me you're not interested in having a genuine discussion.

But I don't have time for the online games of a gun obsessive right now; I've got a show to watch. Later.

[beevul]

16. Not hardly. You made an assertion and I'm asking you to back it up.

You said "You see, context and location are very important here."

If thats true, show me how IF someone were to wear it to a post office...would the state of whether or not the shirt advocates anything at all or not - be different than at a shopping mall, or a restrant, or a high school, or a college, or a pet store, or a hair parlour or the kentucky derby?


Back up your own assertion as you have been asked before asking anything of me, and you will have your answer.

[apocalypsehow]

18. Yes, hardly. You were asked a direct question, one PRECISELY relevant to the issue at hand, an issue

you initiated the discussion about in your OP. Now you refuse to answer that simple, straightforward question on the most dubious of grounds, grounds that would get you laughed out of any high school logic or debate class in these United States.

You're really not very good at this sort of thing, are you?

In any event, the John Adams "bio" on HBO is very good: I highly recommend it to you. Maybe you'd be better at ingesting information than you are at disseminating it, because you're pretty much an embarrassment to yourself when it comes to the latter. It's just a thought.

[beevul]

46. No, not hardly. You left something out.

"you initiated the discussion about in your OP."


Yes I did.


Then you claimed that "You see, context and location are very important here."

Here being a discussion of whether the image in question advocates violence or not. NOT whether the image is offensive. YOU claim that location is relivant to whether the image is an advocation of violence or not, and You are being called on it. See...even in those high school logic or debate classes you seem so fond of, people are actually expected to A explain thier claims, and B back them up. And then C explain how they apply in the situstion being discussed. You didn't want to do that though. You just wanted to jump to C. And you think that I would be laughted out of logic and/or debate class?

"a gun obsessive"

Really now. Is that any way to describe someone that supports instant background checks at retail and supports restrictions on possession of firearms for violent felons? Is that what people that support restrictions like those are called these days? Gun obsessive?


Then you go getting insulting because your position...and your claim...are being questioned. If your position, and your claim is SO grounded, then back it up instead of running away and being insulting.

[apocalypsehow]

53. Yes, hardly. I left nothing out - it was you who refused to answer a pertinent question regarding

your own OP, not I. As I said, dishonesty seems to go hand and and with those of your stripe, and all your special pleading and logical fallacies and just plain ripe silliness (as demonstrated in your post above) doesn't change that a speck.

[beevul]

62. YOU ARE NOT THE DECIDER OF WHAT IS AND IS NOT PERTINENT.

If you claim something IS, you need to support that claim.

You CLAIMED SOMETHING WAS PERTINENT. Nothing more. No proof. No explanation. Nothing.



And no matter how you choose to characterize it, others readsing if they care, can and will see it.

[apocalypsehow]

67. LOL! Hey, I'm not the one who won't answer a straightforward question regarding an OP I posted.

That would be you. Nice further attempt at evasion, though, WITH THE ALL CAPS THAT PROVE YOU ARE NOT VERY GOOD AT THIS BACK-AND-FORTH LOGICAL DISCUSSION THING.

Now, let's try this nice and slow: when you post an OP, the onus is on you to answer pertinent questions regarding it. The question I asked you was exactly "pertinent" to the issue under discussion in your OP. You refused to answer it - and for what turned out to be cowardly, disingenuous reasons.

It really is as simple as that.

[beevul]

72. No. Your the one that thinks they are the sole arbiter of what is "pertinent"

"The question I asked you was exactly "pertinent" to the issue under discussion in your OP."





Explain how, right here, right now.


Go Ahead. Prove me wrong right here for all the world to see.

Explain how your question is pertanent to MY op.

But you wont.


You'll continue to evade backing up your claim that it is, while calling others evasive in the same nasty breath. And you have the nerve to even utter the word "cowardly" or "disingenuous".


Now, let's try this nice and slow: when I post an OP, the onus is on you to read it, and to understand the the discussion me - the OP - was trying to prompt.

I even give hints in the form of cleverly visible text..."I am not asking about how sensible or tasteful the image is, or the wearing of the shirt with that image is, I'm asking simply if it "advocates violence or illegal behavior".


Now, while some folks might read and understand that, It would appear you didn't.


So you reply to my OP asking me where its worn. I reply to you that its in a public place. You reply to me claiming that specifics matter. By the context of the discussion, the implication there, YOUR implication, is that the specific location of where the shirt is being worn, has SOME relationship to whether or not the shirt/message actually advocates violence. That afterall is the context of this discussion. Not whether the message is NICE, or proper, or decent or fair or pretty. You could actually try to demonstrate that now ...



Or just admit you have reading problems.


















Ohh...enjoy Heller.

[apocalypsehow]

79. LOL - more silliness & kerfluffle. You really know how to embarrass yourself.

But by all means, go right ahead:

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - Napoleon

Or, I might add, a total blithering ass of himself.

[Quantess]

81. We can give youthful folly a giggle and a hug, can't we?

:hi:

LOL.

[apocalypsehow]

82. Yep - agree 100%. Within limits: the OP of this thread should really consider re-enrolling in the

first grade, and starting completely over.

LOL.

:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

70. "others readsing if they care" - LOL again! Is "readsing" a new way of communicating among

gun obsessives? Or is that like POSTING IN ALL CAPS AND PRETENDING ONE HAS A VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT IS IRREFUTABLE BY EVERYONE ON THE INTERNETS????

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

28. i will tell you

a student was suspended for wearing a shirt with this message on it...

this happened in a school...

sP

LINK on Edit : http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_t_shirt_gun.html

[apocalypsehow]

40. Thank you for the info, and the link. I appreciate it.

n/t.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. please see message #28

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. It may depend upon the person involved,

but since the MSM has labeled all Muslims terrorists, American Muslims have been harassed, threatened, and their property defaced and harmed. Last month, a mosque in southern Missouri was firebombed, for example. I've heard hate radio telling folks that violence against Muslims is ok--and the only reason not to persecute Jews is that Jesus will take care of them during the Second Coming. In fact, I hear this kind of tripe from my boss, who assures me that Glenn Beck and his preacher must be right. He's told me he would never employ a Muslim and that all should be deported. Obviously, I don't make my faith known to him. I could see the people in this county buying a cartload of these shirts.

[beevul]

9. If it named a religion, or ethnicity, I would agree.

It doesn't though.

It just says terrorists.

I see this in the same way as other shirts that I have seen...for instance the "Blonde stamp on the fake fishing lisence shirts".

Obviously noone is really going to go out and try to set a fishing hook in the mouth of a blonde person.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. But people have bombed mosques in this country

and have basically said that all Muslims are terrorists, and therefore all should be deported from this country. So obviously some people are going to plant a bomb or heave bricks through windows of Muslim businesses in the misguided belief that they are fighting terrorism. These events have happened, and many more besides. So your analogy of setting a fishing hook in the mouth of a blond is not a good one.

[beevul]

43. Unless you think...

Unless you think that the people who have "bombed mosques in this country and have basically said that all Muslims are terrorists, and therefore all should be deported from this country" did so because they were prompted to do so by a tee-shirt, your analogy is no better or worse than mine.

[Quantess]

83. Well, that's another can of worms for you to be confused about.

Next time I see a news alert about a blond woman being attacked with a fishing hook and fishing pole, I know where to start looking for the suspect. :-) Just kidding.

[selador]

11. not in the criminal sense

this is purely protected political speech, much like numerous other case law examples have concluded.

it is absolutely protected free speech.

that much is a given.

[lonestarnot]

15. No bag limit? Fucking rednecks.

[tachyon]

17. It clearly advocates terrorism against gun owners. "No bag limit"

...

[NewHampshireDem]

19. I think it's time to come clean ...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336793,00.html

Sorry for the Faux News link ... they're probably the only ones who care about it. Plus, I think that's the source of the OP's image. :shrug:

As for the court case, I have no doubt the school's actions will be upheld. The courts have long recognized a school's duty to create a safe and orderly environment. In cases like these courts have been loathe to substitute their judgement for that of school boards, who ultimately are responsible for the school's decision. (Please don't quote 'Tinker' back to me, since there's decades of case law since then.)

[Bluebear]

20. "No. 91101" - oh, I get it.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

21. Wow, 4 total fucking morons voted in the poll.

NT!

[Zhade]

25. Oops, make it five total fucking morons.

NT!

[apocalypsehow]

22. *Kickety-kick*

...OP? Poll not going so well?

:rofl:

[tomreedtoon]

23. It is a stupid redneck gift item. Get a life.

It's the same as the "hunt and kill John Kerry and Jane Fonda" stickers on the back of the truck of my auto mechanic. He doesn't want to do either, but it makes him feel better. He is a Vietnam vet who feels sold out by the "liberals." Nothing will convince him otherwise.

Let the idiots have their fun, and don't try to legislate freedom of speech out of the Constitution. We already have Bush for that.

On edit: It's also been on sale in various places ever since September 11. And you're just finding out about this NOW? Where the hell have you been?

[NewHampshireDem]

24. See my response #19 above n/t

[aikoaiko]

26. just a metaphor eom

[Echo In Light]

30. Those who would support its xenophobic message only do so via MSM propaganda/instruction

[treestar]

31. It does seem to imply vigilantism

And the killing of people on accusation alone, without trial.

The "91101" indicates that it is aimed at one type of terrorist - Timothy McVeigh presumably had a right to a trial and not to be just "hunted" down.

Whoever made this up is obviously an ignorant freeper moran.

[reformedrethug]

32. No it does not

advocate violence or illegal behavior, nor does it specify the Islamic Faith as some on here have tried to indicate. If a Native American was wearing this shirt or something similar would we have the same discussion as some see the European settlement and eventual overtaking of North American as terrorisim as well.

The shirt is tasteless and idiotic but it does not advocate violence, and as one poster stated it was probably created by some redneck bible thumper.

[-..__...]

33. No terrorists were harmed during the production of these stickers.

I see these on cars around here all the time (one of the guys even put one on the ladder truck I ride).

No big deal...

No threat or act of violence implied...

No "hunting" parties or vigilantes roaming the streets...

Sometimes a sticker is just a sticker.



More fodder for the drama queens and hand wringers to get their pantyhose all knotted up over.

:eyes:

[Echo In Light]

34. Those opposed to strategically fostered US propaganda are "drama queens" and "hand wringers?"

This type of frightfully ignorant, dis-informed mindset isn't much different than the "support the troops" bullshit PRO WAR ribbons; it supposedly pushes one aim while simultaneously pimping another.

People who sport "hunt terrorist" stickers clearly don't understand that there isn't actually a "war on terror," but a very real war OF terror being carried out by the U.S.

[-..__...]

39. Thanks for the melodrama.

Get a grip on yourself... it's only a friggin sticker fer Christ sakes.

Anyone that associates a joke novelty sticker with the conduct of US troop operations and the US government in Iraq
is dire need of stress and anxiety relief.

[Echo In Light]

47. No prob, Macho Man!

[-..__...]

51. Sure thing, sport.

Reality trumps delusions and ignorance any day.

[NewHampshireDem]

36. F-it ...

Not even worth the time.

[tuckessee]

35. Historical precedence..........

One of the Greatest Generation's many versions
http://members.aol.com:/BKS77PATCH/JHL.JPG

Their children had their own for Vietnam.

Plus another modern example.

[AlCzervik]

37. some fool in my city has a sticker on his car that proclaims "Licensed to hunt and kill terrorists"

this is the only funny "licensed to kill" thing.

[RedCappedBandit]

38. Uh, hunting is pretty fucking violent.

[flvegan]

41. Wanna be tough guys. If one believes in it, then fucking enlist.

Big talk over here all nice 'n safe. Go patrol in Iraq if you want to "hunt" what one would consider a terrorist.

The folks that wear these (I've seen them as bumper sticker type things) would be the first to piss themselves and run screaming at the first sign of any danger.

On edit:

it advocates dumbassery committed by the wearer upon the masses that see it.

[apocalypsehow]

56. You know, it's funny, a few years ago a colleague of mine was deeply immersed in a long-term study

(and a pretty large one) examining in depth the American (male) gun owner. Last time I talked to her about it was a couple of years ago, and the (very much off-the-record) preliminary findings were about what one would expect: every pathology in the book when it came to the rabid "law-abiding gun owner." Or even the "average" one (quote-unquote). To wit, sexual repression; neurotic fear/hatred of women; unhinged desire to control every facet of their environment; sexual orientation issues (and subsequent refusal to embrace their actual sexual orientation); as well as a reactionary longing to "push back" against the Civil Rights advances of women, people of color, and sexual minorities over the last forty years.

Of course, the study was, as I understood it, of the ten year or so variety, so any initial findings are bound to be anecdotal until confirmed by the standard academic double-blinds and other such fail-safes.

Still, as one sees the consistent phoniness, rage, dishonesty, and - it must be said - quite neurotic desire to pretend they're "yellow dog Democrats" in order to maintain the fig leaf of legitimacy to post on a progressive discussion board about their ongoing amorous obsession with instruments of violence demonstrated in threads like this, one starts glimmer where the conclusions of that study will no doubt end up...

[Echo In Light]

59. Well put ... and I doubt her findings were off the mark in many instances...

Nor your own observations re some posting here.

[apocalypsehow]

42. So, it turns out this "image" was being "displayed" at a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Good fucking deal, huh?

No wonder you wouldn't answer the simple question above - your entire objection to folks taking offense to this "image" hinges on the withholding of exactly where said "image" was showing up on the back of a tee-shirt in a "public place."

There is a word for this kind of selective presentation of evidence to any given event: it is called "dishonesty." And you and your fellow gun-obsessives seem chock full of it.

[beevul]

44. So it turns out you have trouble with reading comprehension huh?

I asked a simple question in the OP:

"I am not asking about how sensible or tasteful the image is, or the wearing of the shirt with that image is, I'm asking simply if it "advocates violence or illegal behavior".

See...you don't just get to come into any thread you like and decide for the original poster what they were or were not asking. Deal with it.

No, my entire point is that I see this shirt the same way whether its at a shopping mall, or a restrant, or a high school, or a college, or a pet store, or a hair parlour or the kentucky derby.

You have claimed that status as something that iether does or does not "advocate violence" changes depending on its location, and have yet to offer up proff that that claim is anything but...a claim.


I'll say it again, I NEVER ASKED IN THIS THREAD whether the image in question was offensive, and the purpose of the OP had nothing to do with that.


It simply had to do with whether or not it "advocates violence".


Do try to stay caught up please.

Now that YOU know where the image was displayed, perhaps you can substantiate your claim that its depicting violence or not depends on where it is displayed?

[apocalypsehow]

54. Nah - it's you who has trouble with honesty "comprehension," as amply demonstrated in the deceptive

manner in which you've tried to manipulate facts and evidence in this OP. Nice try, though.

[beevul]

45. For those that think the original image Advocates violence...

Would you say this shirt advocates violence just like the image in the OP?


Would you say this one does not? If so, why?

[Quantess]

58. That's just absurd.

A fishing pole is not an effective device to hunt a human.

[beevul]

61. So you say...

"A fishing pole is not an effective device to hunt a human."

Did someone say otherwise?

A fishing pole is to fishing, what a gun is to hunting.


If one were to apply the same set of standards I believe most people use in coming to the conclusion that the shirt ADVOACTES VIOLENCE, ThOSE standards would find the second shirt advocated actually setting a hook, among other things, in the mouth of a terrorsit. That would be by anyones definition, an act of violence. But would anyone suggest the shirt REALLY advocates it?


If not, what about the shirt with the "hunting" and "gun" on it advocates violence where "Fishing" and "pole" don't?

If SO, I would love to hear the explanation.

[Quantess]

73. That's as far as your analogy goes. Comparison really does stop there.

I know that politicians base their careers on stupid analogies, preachers get people to buy into their crazy ideas by spouting this, well why not that!, and advertisers hope their stupid comparisons will sell their products.

Your own explanation about a fishing hook in a terrorist's mouth amounts to a literary steaming pantload, and if you think anyone buys that line of thinking, then you must think we were all born yesterday.

As for your original post, I say yes, the image literally advocates violence. However, the image is satire, and should not be taken seriously by any sane person.

[beevul]

77. I think you misunderstand.

"As for your original post, I say yes, the image literally advocates violence."


Ok, fair enough. But I think you misunderstand.


If one were to look at the original image and decide it advocates violence, and then look at the second image and decide that it is does also in the same way, you would have to be using the same standards.

If one were to look at both the original image and decide it advocates violence, and then look at the second image and decide anything less, one is obviously not using the same standard. Would you agree?

There are people in both camps, with those differences between them.

Its those standards that I am trying to understand.


Does that make any sense?

[Quantess]

78. I suppose, if I were against the killing of fish.

Some people are. I ate sushi yesterday.

But no, "If one were to look at both the original image and decide it advocates violence, and then look at the second image and decide anything less, one is obviously not using the same standard. Would you agree?" No, I would not agree.

Guns are effective means to kill humans. Fishing poles/hooks are not.

I mean, one could bludgeon someone with a fishing pole, and scratch them all over their body with the hook, but they could still easily survive. They would fight back with fists and kick your silly ass.

Upon edit: If you were "interrogating" a terrorist with a fishing pole and hook, then obviously those would be the secondary instruments of "interrogation". Restraints, handcuffs, chains, would be step #1, if you wanted to hunt a terrorist with a fishing pole.

[beevul]

84. ok...lemme try this way...

"Guns are effective means to kill humans. Fishing poles/hooks are not"

Is that a standard criteria - effective means - in determining if something advocates the doing of something else combined with the given context...a tee-shirt message?

Is that enough all by itself? Or is there more to it than that?

Would the shirt or its status of advocating or not advocating violence change if instead of a picture of a gun and the "gun owner" text, it had the image of a bow and arrows, and "lisenced bow owner"

or the image of a baseball bat and a "lisenced bat owner"?

Lets change the shirt in question by removing the gun and the "gun owner" text, and change them to the image of a car, and "car owner" text, effectively changing the implication on the shirt (whether you take it literally or satirically) from hunting down terrorists to running them down - with an automobile.



The car would meet your "effective means" criteria. Would that shirt be "advocating violence"?

What criteria does something that advocates violence meet, that something thats satirical does not? Where do you draw the line between satire and advocation, and how...

I don't mean in the legal sense necessarily, I mean in peoples forming an opinion on it as well.

[seemunkee]

48. Saw that on a window sticker driving home today

[Canuckistanian]

49. Technically, no

But it does indicate that the wearer WILL VOTE for someone who causes illegal violence.

[Redstone]

50. I've seen a version of that on the dashboard of a rightwing loser

who eats lunch at the place Mrs R and I go to for lunch every Wednesday.

Anyone who has one of those might as well have a sticker that proclaims, "I'm a proud punk-ass coward of a Keyboard Commando!"

Redstone

[-..__...]

52. People who live in glass houses....

shouldn't throw stones.

[Redstone]

55. Indeed.

Redstone

[Hippo_Tron]

57. No but it displays stupidity

If the right wingers want to pick up a weapon and hunt terrorists they should join the military.

[Kitty Herder]

60. I think the t-shirt is quite clear about what it's advocating. "Hunting terrorists" is violence.

I'm not even going to get into its racist, islamophobic implications in the current sorry state of our nation, where we've been conditioned by the MSM and the Bushies to equate "terrorist" with Muslim. We don't even need to get into that to understand the meaning of the shirt. I'm just taking it at face value. Hunting terrorists = illegal violence.

While such a thing offends me and I hate the message it gives, it is, after all, just a t-shirt. It's free speech. It's not a specific threat against specific targets. But I don't think it's at all appropriate for a public school. School administrators have always had the right to set dress codes and disallow clothing that they determine to be inappropriate for a school setting.


edited for grammar and clarity.

[Geek_Girl]

63. I believe so, but so does a pro Bush bumpersticker

IMHO

[mitchum]

64. It advocates the right of those with tiny penises to buy clothing

the tiny penises comment is not in reference to gun owners, but to the type of jackass who would wear such a faux tough guy thing

[Slagathor]

65. It's sort of amusing and it would be nice if someone got OBL

but I don't that's going to happen anytime soon.

[benEzra]

66. Bad taste, but I take it as tongue-in-cheek.

Unless it was intended to be mistaken for a real hunting license, I'd say it's a bad attempt at humor.

[El Pinko]

68. It appeals to an idiotic mindset, but only a psychopath would take that as an invite to violence.

Unfortunately there are more than a few psychopaths walking around.

If the word "terrorist" were replaced with "muslim" or "arab" or whatever, it would be a highly offensive shirt - and that may indeed be the way certain people would interpret it.

But as it is, it's just stupid and crass.

[Lex]

69. It's an IQ indicator

more than anything.

[apocalypsehow]

71. It really doesn't, at the end of the day, surprise me that a dishonestly posted OP cannot withstand

the scrutiny of honest questions put forward regarding it.

Dishonesty seems to be the trademark posting trait of the gun obsessives. As a replacement mechanism for a sense of diminished manhood - another trait gun obsessives seem to share - fetishizing an inanimate object is usually not a harmful thing. But the substitute chubby's you guys pant and drool your pathologies away over wreak bloody havoc throughout American culture - can't you just rebuild muscle cars, or buy Harley's, or simply visit Strip Clubs?

:shrug:

[beevul]

74. Dishonestly posted? Excuse me? The dishonesty here is YOURS friend.

The question I asked in the OP was "does this advocate violence".

You claim where it is worn is relivant to the answer to that question.

Back that claim up. For the nth time.








Oh, do enjoy Heller. :hi:

[apocalypsehow]

80. "You claim where it is worn is relivant" - is that even coherent to the semi-literates among us?

:rofl:

"Oh, do enjoy Heller."

Yep - looks like it's going to come down to the five right-wing assholes on the Court vs. the four progressives. Why, oh why, does it come as little surprise to me - or anyone else who's been paying even casual attention - that you are solidly in the corner of the appointees by the likes of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and G.W.?

Seems to me there's a pattern to this tale, somewhere...

[beevul]

85. A pattern indeed.

"Seems to me there's a pattern to this tale, somewhere..."

Helmke - Republican.


Brady - Republican

"WASHINGTON, D.C. (Dec. 2) -- Incoming Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) today said in a taping of
the "Court TV" cable program: "I don't expect (the Brady and
semi-auto laws) to be touched."

That's wishful thinking by a guy who voted for both those
laws -- and who I once saw come down from his Judiciary Committee
perch to hug and be pecked by Sarah Brady."

A Swell pattern indeed.

Coal...kettle...black...blah blah blah.

[ecstatic]

75. I saw it on a bumper sticker. I think it incites hatred

On both sides. I wanted to run that idiot rethug off the road.

[Raejeanowl]

76. It Doesn't Incite/Invite Violence

Although it could be misunderstood and the message warped by the feeble of mind.

On the other hand, it is a wish-fulfillment to its author; s/he had to imagine a world where this is permissible. To that limited extent, yes, it is "advocated."

Which doesn't mean it isn't also intended satirically. Think in terms of Monty Python situation comedy (the ultimate acting-out of many a violent fantasy) on tee-shirts.