GOP candidate threatens to use the "bullet box" if she loses her election

[jgraz]

VA GOP delegate candidate may 'resort to the bullet box'

Meet the latest GOP clown: She may not be able to shoot a gun, but she's willing to lead a revolution if she loses her election evidently.

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2009/07/republicans-becoming-unhinged.html">Political blog Not Larry Sabato reports on an astonishing statement by a Virginian running to become a Republican Party delegate.

"We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box...That's the beauty of our 2nd Amendment rights," Catherine Crabill, the GOP nominee for Delegate in Virginia's 99th District said Wednesday, as the video posted by the blog shows.

Crabill adds, "Our 2nd Amendment right was to guard against tyranny."

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/va-gop-delegate-candidate-may-resort-to-the-bullet-box/

That's the problem with the fantasy of private gun ownership as some magical bulwark against tyranny: everyone has their own personal definition of what "tyranny" is.

[Political Heretic]

1. Your sig line is the BEST EVER

:rofl:

[jgraz]

3. I think you're only the second person to actually read it to the end.

And no, you don't win a prize :D

[hfojvt]

7. Or to read it at all

I read your post without even looking at the sig line.

[jgraz]

13. It's not nearly as fun if everyone reads it

We've all had these oh-so-profound quotes in our sig lines at one point or another. No one gives them a second glance.

[SteveM]

17. Funny. Orwell was one of the biggest defenders of an armed civilian population (nt)

[jgraz]

41. Well, nobody's perfect.

[Endangered Specie]

45. mhmm, which is why Winston Smith wasn't allowed to own guns...

I wonder why.

[Endangered Specie]

44. Mine is from the same person...

[jgraz]

2. argh... wrong spot

:grr:

[sharp_stick]

4. I wonder how upset she and her host of

assholes would be if an opponent were to get up and declare they are happy to be able to run against her idiocy by election because if they win they won't be forced to shoot her in the head as they would have to if they lost the election to her?

[SteveM]

5. If you are that worried about her, then maybe you should get a gun (nt)

[jgraz]

6. Yep, that's the solution. Let's all shoot at each other.

Thank you for so succinctly encapsulating the intellectual bankruptcy of the pro-gun movement.

[SteveM]

14. You are the fearful one. I'm not afraid of her. Why are you? (nt)

[jgraz]

16. No, really. We get it. You have no answer.

You can't address (or perhaps even understand) the core point of the post so you throw around your little macho schoolboy taunts about who's "afraid" of whom.

[SteveM]

19. You seemed very afraid. I didn't run out and get a gun because of her...

I already have my own.

BTW, I love Orwell. He was one of the biggest defenders of an armed civilian population. But through all that macho, I guess you didn't bother to think.

[jgraz]

21. Hey, I think this gun nut doll is broken

Every time I pull his string, he says the same thing. :shrug:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Downtown Hound]

8. Is that your answer to everything? n/t

[zbdent]

10. an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves everyone blind and toothless ...

my RW brother sent me a video of a man bragging about his car, and his neighbor kept saying how his deal was better ... for a nicer car, which also happened to be a hybrid.

In the end, the guy who was bragging got a gun out of his glove box and shot the neighbor several times ...

I restrained from replying to the e-mail stating that guns seem to be the solution to everything for some RW a**holes ... especially when they lose an argument ...

[AtheistCrusader]

30. A mock video, I trust?

Hope?

[zbdent]

39. yes ... sorry ...

I should have made that clear ... it was a fake commercial for the car the guy with the gun had ...

[E-Mag]

43. Here is the vid if you want to see it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIDpCT1tOqE

[jgraz]

11. Of course. No act of tyranny can stand against a well-armed citizenry

Well, except for two stolen elections, two illegal wars, suspension of Habeas Corpus, warrantless wiretaps, the PATRIOT act, a fully-politicized DOJ and state-sponsored torture.

But hey, it's not like the Bush Regime had their own personal death squads.

Oh wait...

[Downtown Hound]

12. Speak for yourself

I have every intention of shooting down an F-22 with me deer rifle.

:eyes:

I also hunt quail with my AR-15.

[jgraz]

18. Before you shoot down that F-22

You'll have to take on the vast majority of gun-loving Americans who will be supporting the tyrants. That should be fun.

[TPaine7]

29. Separation of Powers, free speech and the democratic process are also supposed to stop those things

None of them did.

Now separation of powers was actually used--the executive's actions were challenged in court. The democratic process was used--Congress changed hands late in Bush's term. Freedom of speech and petitioning of the government were used. They all failed.

The "logic" of your argument seems to be that if a system or provision put in place to resist tyranny fails in specific times or instances, it should forevermore be abandoned. I take it you support abandoning separation of powers, free speech and the democratic process? That would logically follow.

Of course if you agree that sound provisions to preserve freedom can sometimes fail, then your argument is shown for what it is--substance free snark.

The reason we have these problems is that the American people didn't care enough to stop them. Force would not have been remotely necessary--political will would have sufficed. It would have prevailed long before a place where revolution would have been rational. In sum, your examples say nothing about the efficacy of the Second Amendment--nothing whatsoever.

Why don't you read (or reread) the Declaration of Independence and note carefully two points. First it is wise to put up with a lot of BS, at least in many cases, before resorting to force. Second--and this is not explicitly said, but I think it's in the spirit of the document--people who can't be bothered to call their Senators and congressmen certainly don't have the moral authority to mount a revolution.

[SteveM]

15. Not at all. Are you afraid of this hack? I'm not (nt)

[Downtown Hound]

23. No, I'm not afraid. That's why I don't need a gun. n/t

[SteveM]

25. We agree.

I've had my gun for years for other purposes -- like home invaders, not cheesy ultra-right GOPers.

[Downtown Hound]

27. Home invaders I can understand. n/t

[pscot]

9. Go for it lady.

Make my day.

[SteveM]

20. LOL!

[Tim01]

22. She sounds kind of wacky. nt

[slackmaster]

26. The proper term is "ammo box"

Thanks for allowing me to clear that up.

[jgraz]

28. Really? I always thought it was...

1. Standing-on Box
2. Put yer vote in here Box
3. Thing where those people sit in court Box
4. Bullet Box


Yes, this woman is an idiot.

[slackmaster]

32. Soap box, ballot box, ammo box

That's how I've always heard it.

[jgraz]

34. That's how we all heard it

See above re: woman is an idiot.

[iverglas]

37. c'mon now

No poetic licence allowed?

;)

[TPaine7]

31. Your title seems to be... ahem... utter drivel.

The woman is obviously right wing and more than a little loopy. But she nowhere even hints that she will use the bullet box if she loses her personal election. And nowhere does she equate her losing her individual election to tyranny.

This is simply dishonest. But it sure does fit your prejudices, doesn't it?

[iverglas]

33. didya try reading the actual article?

I confess that I thought the interpretation advanced might have been a little OTT. Then I read the whole thing.

Herewith some bits with my emphasis.

The Washington Times quoted her as saying:

... Crabill denied making the 1995 statement <re the Oklahoma City bombing, that 'this heinous act of violence was the work of our government'>, but, in a recent posting on her Web site, catherinecrabill.com, she said: "I did and do believe that our government was culpable in the <Oklahoma City> bombing. I am not ashamed of standing with my friends and neighbors in New Mexico from the domestic terrorists known as our own government."

Fredrick Kunkle reports for The Washington Post website, "If a fiery call to arms is good enough for Patrick Henry, then it's good enough for Catherine Crabill."

... "Those are my convictions," Crabill, 52, said in a telephone interview this morning. "I am a full-blooded, freedom-loving American, and what we're seeing in Washington is domestic terrorism at its worst."

Now I'll grant ya, some people said some pretty strong things about the Bush Administration that weren't too different. (Of course, they were grounded in reality.)

But I don't know of any that coupled them with:

We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box.

(I mean, not any who were denouncing the Bush Administration without crossing their fingers behind their backs first, eh?)

[TPaine7]

35. Yes. I did.

I watched the clip, too.

You seem to be missing my point. I admitted that she was right wing and loopy.

The title of the OP is

"GOP candidate threatens to use the 'bullet box' if she loses her election

And here's my response:

The woman is obviously right wing and more than a little loopy. But she nowhere even hints that she will use the bullet box if she loses her personal election. And nowhere does she equate her losing her individual election to tyranny.

This is simply dishonest. But it sure does fit your prejudices, doesn't it?

Your quotes and your post support her being right wing and loopy--as I stated earlier. They do not support her tying her personal, individual election to either tyranny or revolution.

[iverglas]

36. ah

That's an extremely important hair you've split there.

I guess some momentous ... thing ... hinged on the wording of the subject line of the opening post ...

Hmm. No. I guess not.

[TPaine7]

38. So in your universe, truth is a hair-splitting ... thing?

That explains a lot.

Either...

1) The woman threatens to use the "bullet box" if she loses her personal individual election

...as the OP alleges

or...

2) She is only asserting one of the foundational principles of American political philosophy (as seen through her twisted lens, admittedly)--the right of the American people to violently revolt against a government that ignores their will as expressed through the ballot box.*

And that would be a hair--splitting distinction in your reality? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.






*(And just for clarification, no, that would not be the ballot box in her little personal election race. That would be something like Bush insisting on a third term--for national security, of course. Or even the Bush-Gore fiasco, had America cared enough.)

[jgraz]

40. Ah, so she's just threatening armed revolution if we don't accede to the demands of the teabaggers

Yeah, that's much better. :eyes:

The video, put up after I posted my OP (note the presence in the "update" section) makes her views a lot more clear than the article did. However, it doesn't change the central point of my post one whit.

Of course, you think you've caught me at something, so far be it from me to put a damper on your fun.


(BTW, the ability to distinguish core issues from meaningless detail is a key indicator of intelligence and mental health. You may want to have that looked at.)

[TPaine7]

42. "Of course, you think you've caught me at something,"

You're so funny, jgraz.

I would like to think it it was intentional, but the truth is much more pathetic.

Ah, so she's just threatening armed revolution if we don't accede to the demands of the teabaggers

If the teabaggers have the votes--that's the "ballot box" bit--then their policies should prevail if they are within the Constitution. It's called constitutional democracy. That is a far cry from revolution if she looses her personal election.

Meet the latest GOP clown: She may not be able to shoot a gun, but she's willing to lead a revolution if she loses her election evidently.

See that word "evidently"? It's to keep the author from looking like a fool, and possibly from losing a lawsuit. He counted on prejudiced or unprincipled partisans to remove the word as they read. He was at least partially right. We know of at least two people stupid or dishonest enough to miss the distinction between revolution over a personal election loss and revolution over the failure of the votes of the American people to effect change.

Of course, you think you've caught me at something

LOL. Don't flatter yourself. Catching you at something isn't an accomplishment. If I wanted to catch you at something, I could have pointed out in excruciating detail the irony of you--someone who has refused to take responsibility for your own positions, preferring to blame them on others--talking about the "intellectual bankruptcy" of gun rights advocates. You are the only person I have ever seen to use that pathetic defense on any online forum. Ever. I could have brought up your brilliant mantra--"but where does it say it was an individual right"--which was reduced to elementary particles (though you stubbornly refused to admit it.)

I could have "caught you" carefully avoiding the substance of the OP on the thread I started using the brief of multiple liberal scholars (and a libertarian). You presented yourself as being offended by my statement that judicial opinions refusing to recognize the 14th Amendment's implications on the RKBA would be seen as the "second coming of Dred Scott. I knew that I had ample basis for the statement in multiple threads of history and logic that would flow from Dred Scott through its progeny to such a judicial opinion. But it was enough to see you refuse to engage on substance and take "offense" on things you don't really understand. I didn't bother to refute your "outrage"--it's not as if you would have been interested in inconvenient facts anyway (based on previous discussion on the subject).

No, I'm not looking to "catch you" in inconsistencies. That's not worth the minuscule effort it would require. I'm trying to help honest people see sophistries that might otherwise escape them. When you talk about the intellectual bankruptcy of gun rights advocates, honest people can easily see through you. When you carefully avoid the actual issues and toss out snark and feigned outrage, you probably don't fool too many people. I thought this case was an exception.

BTW, the ability to distinguish core issues from meaningless detail is a key indicator of intelligence and mental health. You may want to have that looked at.

Apparently it's OK for you to question my mental health. Whatever.

I can operate within the rules and still get my point across. I don't take moral cues from paragons of virtue like Charles Manson. I don't take investing advice from financial wizards like Bernie Maddoff. I don't take race relations advice from peace lovers like David Duke. And I don't take mental health and intelligence advice from mental giants like yourself.

Get someone to explain it to you.