TexasCHLforum.com

uthornsfan wrote: but when people start saying things like "On January 21st these cretins may discover that the ability to get away with this kind of behavior has changed." I feel like that is essentially saying its my way or the highway, or something bad is going to happen to you.

Allow me to clarify my remark: The current administration in Washington has both promoted and ignored lawlessness. The new administration may deal with lawlessness in a more harsh manner - like enforcing the law.

And yes, it's lawful behavior or "the highway" to jail.

uthornsfan,

O.K.

I'll send this type thing to your unsuspecting Mother/Grandmother and I can argue the "yeah, but, the 1st Amendment blah, blah, blah allows me to blah, blah, blah.

Please... there are times when sheer awfulness is in a legal sense legal, but how'd you like a photo of your aborted fetus to show up on Mom's Christmas card?

Use just a little bit of compassion, or are you on left, bereft of that...?

uthornsfan wrote:How is this a threat to anyone?

As dispicable as it may be, this is a first amendment right and it seems silly that people here would upset by anything other than the content.

It is not illegal to send a statment in the mail. They quoted a bible verse and wrote a letter. While unfortunate for the recipients there is nothing to see here other than the spectale of the ignorant and emotional.

Noticed you posted this on the article also.... I understand that you are fishing. People with empathy understand that when referring to Jesus, #1 - you treat people the way you want to be treated.

sending graphic images to his HOME instead of office in very improper. How would you react if this was sent to your kids. As a Captain in the Army, according to your facebook. Pretty sure you might flip out.

2nd question? You have never even lived in Texas, are you just trolling this site?

Me thinks some people are confused about what is in poor taste and what is threatening/illegal.

I hate that these Gun Control supporters did this, but I also hate the fact that anti abortion folks frequent the intersection between my house and my young nieces with images of partial birth, etc. Both are in extremely poor taste, but from what I see neither are threatening.

I am not trolling, i'm not a liberal, I have personally reached out to Charles on multiple occasions to offer him help. I didn't post anything on the article, I never post comments on any social media platform I am not on any social media platform. I am a member here and engage in conversations and have been for a long time.

I am confused on how my comments are so misconstrued but I do feel like you all are proving my point precisely though.

It tugs at your sensibilities, your emotions, your empathy. Think for 1 moment that someone does not feel just as passionately about you openly carrying a firearm around their child. It doesn't make it illegal, but they sure do have an emotional reaction. I am simply asking that we don't do the same thing. They want us to react, do not feed into it.

To whoever thinks I am a Captain in the Army that's funny. You cannot find me on Facebook, and it is highly unlikely that anyone here knows anything more than my first name. Even if you did know my full name, the only thing you would find is my employer and know that I live and work in Texas. I did serve in the USAF, went to Iraq, and proudly am a law abiding citizen who has his LTC.

All I am saying is that people are making very BOLD statements about this particular incident. In this instance, this isn't intimidation.

I agree with you that the current administration has promoted lawlessness and am hopeful that this will change, it simply doesn't apply to this situation.

steveincowtown wrote:Me thinks some people are confused about what is in poor taste and what is threatening/illegal.

I hate that these Gun Control supporters did this, but I also hate the fact that anti abortion folks frequent the intersection between my house and my young nieces with images of partial birth, etc. Both are in extremely poor taste, but from what I see neither are threatening.

Thank you Steve, well said!

ScottDLS wrote:Skippr tracked down their Web Host and presumably one of their Principals in this thread.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... =BetsyRiot

Maybe Dana Loesch can shame these fools.

Should people them some pictures of aborted babies? I'm sure these lefties are just as pro-abortion as they are anti-gun.

Actually, Skippr was close but the IP that he references is only a virtual hosting provider that hosts several hundred domains. However, if one knows where and how to look, there are multiple domains starting with "betsy" that are also resident on that server. One of these raises my eyebrows but overall the site it looks more like vanity hosting for betsy's.

uthornsfan wrote:I am not trolling, i'm not a liberal, I have personally reached out to Charles on multiple occasions to offer him help. I didn't post anything on the article, I never post comments on any social media platform I am not on any social media platform. I am a member here and engage in conversations and have been for a long time.

To whoever thinks I am a Captain in the Army that's funny. You cannot find me on Facebook, and it is highly unlikely that anyone here knows anything more than my first name. Even if you did know my full name, the only thing you would find is my employer and know that I live and work in Texas. I did serve in the USAF, went to Iraq, and proudly am a law abiding citizen who has his LTC.

All I am saying is that people are making very BOLD statements about this particular incident. In this instance, this isn't intimidation.

I agree with you that the current administration has promoted lawlessness and am hopeful that this will change, it simply doesn't apply to this situation.

I do apologize for misrepresenting you. and than you for your service.

I will backtrack on my statement. You are correct, the card by itself is not committing any crime but is in very very bad taste.

DocV wrote:Actually, Skippr was close but the IP that he references is only a virtual hosting provider that hosts several hundred domains. However, if one knows where and how to look, there are multiple domains starting with "betsy" that are also resident on that server. One of these raises my eyebrows but overall the site it looks more like vanity hosting for betsy's.

Well, you're pretty close, too.

Tim Owens purchased DNS IP addresses 172.93.105.32 through 172.93.105.39 from ReliableSite.Net LLC. The ARIN WHOIS record shows that purchase was made April 15, 2016 (https://www.whois.com/whois/172.93.105.34). The domain name betsyriot.com was registered three months later on July 23.

What Mr. Owens does with his grand total of eight IP addresses is his business...but he is not what I would term a virtual hosting provider. At least, not in the traditional, legitimate sense. True hosting providers assign a distinct IP address, be it static or dynamic, to each account hosted. Owens is gaming the system by using domain name redirects on his server--which in all likelihood is a dedicated or cloud-based server actually residing to ReliableSite.Net, not in Owens's small basement--to allow named destinations to be reached without an IP address. That's why entering http://172.93.105.34/ directly into your browser address field nets you nothing but a cPanel default "Sorry!" page.

And seemingly every domain name that is associated with that IP is registered via Privacy Protection Service Inc. out of Queensland, Australia; one of many companies that, for a fee, acts a go-between to hide the name and contact information of the actual registrant.

This is not a retail webhosting provider like HostGator, SiteGround, or InMotion. This is one guy 40 miles from D.C. who is not even acting as a reseller; he is "subletting" his IP address(es) for whatever purposes, ethical or not, and helping to obfuscate the ones in the latter category.

He's a coward hiding behind anonymity because he is afraid he may be treated as he is treating others.

It is a veiled threat much like what the mob used to do or still may do to people that oppose them. You see what guns can do? This is horrible. And you support this? The veiled threat is the implication that it could happen to you. It is a tactic to horrify and terrorize the receiver in an attempt to play upon their fears. Who wouldn't be on higher alert after receiving something like this?

Not that I have any respect for the dingbat, but again, it's Stickland, not Strickland.

Skiprr wrote:What Mr. Owens does with his grand total of eight IP addresses is his business...but he is not what I would term a virtual hosting provider. At least, not in the traditional, legitimate sense. True hosting providers assign a distinct IP address, be it static or dynamic, to each account hosted. Owens is gaming the system by using domain name redirects on his server--which in all likelihood is a dedicated or cloud-based server actually residing to ReliableSite.Net, not in Owens's small basement--to allow named destinations to be reached without an IP address. That's why entering http://172.93.105.34/ directly into your browser address field nets you nothing but a cPanel default "Sorry!" page.

I tried that with this website's IP address and got the same error. http://208.77.216.135