-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Guy loses guns over what he said on his blog? Sorry if its a repeat.
- Thread starter EDA50
- Start date
Phoenix David
Regular Member
Depending on what exactly he said he maybe in trouble or he might have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit.
As I understand free speech, you could praise and be thankful of what happened in Tucson and make the little *^%$# your hero , but once you start making threats and encouraging others to do the same thing then you cross over the line from protected speech.
As I understand free speech, you could praise and be thankful of what happened in Tucson and make the little *^%$# your hero , but once you start making threats and encouraging others to do the same thing then you cross over the line from protected speech.
eastmeyers
Regular Member
Weather or not he broke any laws, and/or had his civil rights violated, he still has no class. Period.
:uhoh:
:uhoh:
Last edited:
Scooter123
Regular Member
I am not the least bit fond, nor supportive, to Morons with guns. Anyone stupid enough to post something this inflamatory on a Public venue after what just happened deserves to get put under a microscope.
Just because someone says something politically incorrect (or is a troll, as this guy seems to be) does not necessarily mean he's making a threat. Temporarily revoking his license is an acceptable precaution. Revoking his second amendment right by confiscating his guns when he has committed no crime is a crime in itself. I expect he will sue and win.
Last edited:
Phoenix David
Regular Member
You made a political speech for the opponent of the current chief of police and he has your permit revoked. What's the difference?
Speech that is the most offensive is what needs the most protection. Popular speech usually doesn't need protection it's the unpopular speech that needs protection.
So having a permit also now places a muzzle on your right to free speech?
Speech that is the most offensive is what needs the most protection. Popular speech usually doesn't need protection it's the unpopular speech that needs protection.
So having a permit also now places a muzzle on your right to free speech?
Onnie
Regular Member
If the article is a true representation of his blog, and since I have not read his blog, I will comment on what is in the article. Not only should his CPL be revoked so should his guns, until a decision can be made to determine if he is capable of the responsibility of owning and possessing guns
We may not like our politicians, but we have no rights to threaten them or even suggest they should be shot. This goes to regular citizens as well. When you make a stupid statement like that you deserve all the hardship that comes with it.
We may not like our politicians, but we have no rights to threaten them or even suggest they should be shot. This goes to regular citizens as well. When you make a stupid statement like that you deserve all the hardship that comes with it.
stainless1911
Banned
So, a right should be a privilege then? The only way to have freedom, is to have tolerance for what you don't like or agree with. A person has to be free to rant, or to later change their mind. Shall not be infringed should mean what it says. One right should not be dependent on the other. Its bad enough that we have to watch what we say around here, although its better than most sites, but to lose your rights for it?
ElectricianLU58
Regular Member
i agree with onnie. maybe people who write things like that should not have guns. i did not read his blog either. just the quotes. the quotes were pretty terrible, though.
i do not see how his threats could be protected speech.
i do not see how his threats could be protected speech.
I don't see how its that much different than the cop in Palo Alto who put up on facebook that open carriers should be shot. By the same token, shouldn't this police officer also be stripped of his right to own and carry firearms?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v85_soAgQr4
Maybe this MA man who is under scrutiny for his comments should just tell everyone he was only joking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v85_soAgQr4
Maybe this MA man who is under scrutiny for his comments should just tell everyone he was only joking.
stainless1911
Banned
Its a slippery slope to start with one thing that a person has said, and then another thing is a prohibition, and then another, and another.
Take our Castle doctrine for example. You cant shoot somebody who says that they are going home to get their gun so they can kill someone. You can, if they did go get that gun, and then make an obvious clear and present threat with it. Similarly, speech, (and stupidity) should be protected up to, and until the person becomes an actual threat.
Take our Castle doctrine for example. You cant shoot somebody who says that they are going home to get their gun so they can kill someone. You can, if they did go get that gun, and then make an obvious clear and present threat with it. Similarly, speech, (and stupidity) should be protected up to, and until the person becomes an actual threat.
ElectricianLU58
Regular Member
i disagree. threats of violence, physical or verbal, should be criminal and should be permanently on one's criminal record. violence of any kind, should not be expungeable. a verbal threat of violence IS an actual threat.
stainless1911
Banned
To whom, and in what office, are you willing to entrust the definition of violence to?
As it is now, and as a direct result of similar thinking, a person can loose their rights due to things like driving violations, failure to afford court fees, (ie contempt) and non violent felonies, as well as the hearsay system of PPO's.
As it is now, and as a direct result of similar thinking, a person can loose their rights due to things like driving violations, failure to afford court fees, (ie contempt) and non violent felonies, as well as the hearsay system of PPO's.
Last edited:
B
Bikenut
Guest
And how long will it be before it is a crime to cause someone to "feel" intimidated by how they are looked at... how a person dresses... or... OH MY!!! open carry.
While i understand that verbal threats are cause for alarm I am reminded of this old phrase said when I was a kid.... "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me".....
Please let us not fall for the idea that it is a crime to hurt someone's "feelings" or for someone to become "scared" due to the words of others.
Any actual actions made to follow through on verbal threats is what folks should be concerned with.... not hot air.
And another thing... and this is a full on RANT!........
Why is it when some punk threatens me it is no big deal... no one cares.. and the police won't do anything until the threat has been carried out. But when one of the "elite" gets their nose in a snit over something someone said... or when someone made a threat... the whole world comes to a screeching halt until the miscreant is hog tied and run out of town on a rail? Why is there such a difference between the "elite" and "we the people"?
stainless1911
Banned
+1
+1,000 re. OC
+1,000 re. OC
I didn't read through his blog but did the guy actually threaten anyone with harm? There's a big difference hoping someone would be hurt, saying someone should be hurt and telling everyone that you intend to go hurt someone. Did he give a preference, an opinion or did he actually threaten to cause someone harm?
xd shooter
Regular Member
It has been said that ONE of the reasons for the 2nd amendment is in case our government stops listening to "the people", stops doing the will of the people.
Isn't that a tacit threat, to ANYONE in office?
Isn't that a tacit threat, to ANYONE in office?
B
Bikenut
Guest
Could that be the real driving force behind "gun control"?
stainless1911
Banned