I guess we're all just supposed to assume that this is some sort of Swiftian (or in the parlance of these mouth-breathing troglodytes, Coulterian) satire, right? Hardly. Turner parses his rants like -- well, like one o' them thar trial lawyers they always profess so much to despise.
And like Coulter, Turner is just hopelessly out of his depth in attempting to spin any sort of rational, objective point out of all this. At least he doesn't have Coulter's asinine tic of injecting jerky anachronisms and played-out pop-culture references in the midst of all the foamy schtick. Nope, ol' Hal's all foam.
This sort of hypocritical bluster is easily deconstructed. Either Turner is serious about this, and is just using "may" because he's taken enough jailhouse-lawyer classes to know a weasel-word when he sees one, or it's all just empty, over-the-top belligerence, in which case, why does he bother?
Turn the argument around. Say one of these imaginary liberal boogeymen these douchebags are always nattering on about uses such weaselly phraseology on Turner. "Hey Turner, if you persist in being a fatuous retard, I may have to break into your house, strap you to a chair, and shave your house pets down while you watch and cry like the closet-case you are. I also reserve the option to shave down your beastly wife, right down to the last back-fold."
Obviously, I'm leavening the tone of the hypothetical threat, but you get the point. If Turner were to get a threat on his life or the lives of his family, his assumptions about the sender are that either the person is serious -- if clinically insane -- or is nothing more nor less than a raging fuck-knuckle who needs to get some inflatable companionship and quit pestering the internets with his fever dreams.
So, um, which is it, Hal? Because maybe you think you're engaging in some warped form of "irony" or "sophistry", or some rarefied intemellectual plateau of "satire", but it's none of those things. It's a pussy defense of cheap weasel words that people can only dismiss as either the shavings of someone who has sharpened far too much of his intellectual pencil, or a call to McVeigh-style action. One or the other, sport; hiding behind "may" is as gutless as it gets.
First is the cheap conflation of people who came to the U.S. illegally, and simply worked jobs and provided for their families, with violent criminals operating with relative impunity. I am not a fan of amnesty, not by any means. But it is unrealistic to expect the government to magically root out some 12 million people -- many of whom have children who were born here, and are thus American citizens -- and ship 'em home. And it is insane to clearly advocate violent retaliation against legislators -- of any party, lest I forget to pre-empt any concern trolls -- who are doing what they can to find reasonable ways to resolve the situation.
The illegals who are caught committing crimes get jail time just as citizens do, plus they get deported. To sit there and bloviate over their supposed kid-glove treatment is ridiculous. To insist that violence should be seriously considered as a solution is dangerous, especially since, by definition, Turner's twisted rhetoric is specifically aimed at angry loners who are either too ignorant or too caught up in their impotent rage to get that what Turner's saying is either sheer lunacy or merely masturbatory. And to hide that call for violence behind some puling semantic trick is nothing short of despicable.
Chuck Norris should kick his ass.