Posted on 01/19/2011 7:14:56 AM PST by Mad Dawgg
The part of about not shooting innocent people and targeting the congress members is clearly not a joke, and is advocating the murder of 534 members of Congress. The authorities were right to temporarily take his weapons. He will have an opportunity to get them back through due process.
Do you think an Islamic Jihadist who blogs threats or calls for 534 suicide bombings or terrorist attacks should be allowed to keep his weapons, and the 1,000 pounds of fertilizer in the van in his garage until due process has been completed?
Did you ever study basic sentence structure in grade school? The subject is implied, and the implied subject is you.
If you don’t see the threat there, you may be as nutty as the idiot who made it
What part of “Target only politicians and their staff...” (in the clear context of “shooting” from the previous sentence), do you not understand?
What if one of the 7 members of your immediate family was murdered by a street gang, and then one of the gang members wrote:
“Seven down, six to go” and
“It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only Uncle Ike and his family members and their staff and leave their neighbors alone.”
That wouldn’t be a threat, and you’d be outraged if they took the guys weapons, right?
One person made a decision to strip 2nd Ammendment rights, without a court system, without redress, without the over-sight.
This idiot made a GENERAL statement, saying what many others believe. He didn’t murder, or incite others to murder - he simply said “### to go”. We have ‘comedians’ to talk about assination of GW Bush, and that’s perfectly fine. When one makes a written threat, that’s actionable. But, a statement that there are some number left to go - is NOT a threat.
Yes, the guy who thinks that there are too many Libtards (or, conversely a gun-owning Libtard who makes the same GENERAL statement on Conservatives) should NOT be deprived of their Bill of Rights, simply because of a GENERAL statement.
I value my 2nd Ammendmendment rights far more than you do, apparently. They will NOT be stripped without due process.
Context is everything. What he said may be ill-advised hyperbole, but it does not appear to be a threat. If, instead of merely advocating it, he had claimed that he was planning to commit mass murder, that would have been an actual threat. If he were standing directly outside of the Capitol building, stirring up an angry crowd of NARAL members or radical environmentalists or New York Times columnists, all holding pitchforks and/or guns, that might legitimately be construed as an actual threat.
Sitting behind a keyboard in his mother's basement and writing the words that he wrote is not - rather, that is speech protected under the first amendment.
Just as many here have suggested that the world would be a better place if Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro were no longer breathing air, those are not actual threats - it's not the same as if those posters were claiming that they themselves were planning or intending to kill Chavez or Castro, which would appear to be actual threats.
“”Sitting behind a keyboard in his mother’s basement””
____
Is this true that the 39 year old blogger being discussed here lives with his mother?
I was using hyperbole (or was it sarcasm?). I have no actual knowledge of the guy’s living arrangements.
Really they’re just saying what’s been the case for a while, if you make a statement that’s deemed as threatening to government officials you’ll get a visit from some well dressed people. Threatening speech isn’t protected.
This is EXACTLY why the 1st and 2nd Amendments exist. Too bad we are no longer in a Constitutional Republic. Or at least, some states no longer have a republican form of government that respects the US Constitution.
Let’s get one point straight - so it doesn’t get glossed over.
What this guy did, was wrong. Based upon what others have posted, and you have added - this guy SHOULD be given his day in court.
But, you NEVER bypass the Bill of Rights, without due process. You wouldn’t tolerate stripping his ability to worship, associate with those he feels, have him forced to quarter troops, ect. As is, his 5th, 6th and 7th Ammendment rights have been bypassed - by a Police Dept.
His 2nd Ammendment rights, were upsurped by a group that are not empowered to do what they have done. The fact that this group has taken it upon themselves to bypass the Bill of Rights with impunity - is an issue in and of itself.
So, yes; this idiot should get his day in court. He should be charged, and given an opportunity to defend what he put forth.
And, similarily - the Police Deptartment should face charges MORE heinous than solicitation to commit murder. What this blogger suggested was the deaths of 500+ people; what the Police did was trample the rights enjoyed by over a Hundred Million people, rights purchased by the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands. What you do to one, you can do to all.
I agree with you. What happened to liberals "I will defend to the death your right to say it"? It went into their panties when their bladder let loose at the thought of a gun, that's what.
Well said. I can't believe we have people here on FR defending the police taking away the not-to-be-infringed right to keep and bear arms, without so much as a trial.
What any government claims authority to do, and what it has the natural right to do are two different things. Massachusetts has stripped a citizens' rights under color of law. That is wrong.
You know, if people like you keep supporting the almighty state, one of these days, there is going to be a bloody revolution, like there was last time.
I’ve never had a DUI so don’t know the process, but am assuming that if I’m pulled over with a very high blood alcohol level, they’re going to take my license on the spot.
This has been referred to as “thoughts,” and the authorities as “thought police.” But, it is NOT thoughts, it’s a published article, put online, available to hundreds of millions of people. If they were merely his thoughts none of us would be writing about them.
He applied for and was granted a ‘permit’ by the same authorities who have withdrawn that permit temporarily; he submitted to their right to issue him a permit. As part of that, he very likely submitted to its withdrawal under certain circumstances. If we want to do away completely with ‘permits’ to carry, that is quite another topic.
He should be arrested and convicted of first degree stupidity.
Due Process must be fair. For a governing body to decide the fate of a person's fundamental right to protect himself, they MUST present him an opportuntity be able to defend his actions, and these actions must show or be based upon the commission of a crime. For example, if he was found Guilty of inciting - then the removal of his Gun Licence would be based upon an established act, a consequence of his actions as determined by a Court of Law, not a group of 'elites'. At this point in time, he has not been tried, let alone convicted. A 'punishment' was thus admistered without Due Process.
Under this method of operation, the Police Dept would be free to incarcerate him, and/or confiscate his home, possessions, finances as well. All they need do is 'investigate' - who needs a court system and all that hassle? After all, can't any of these be used to commission the crime they have merely accused him of contemplating?
What we have, is an unelected group of people, who have taken it upon themselves to deprive rights secured in the Bill of Rights - without a trial, without Constitutional authority, and without redress. Will this same commission now revoke his Driver's license? How about his Title on his house? Can they revoke the license for his car? You know, just to be 'safe'?
Now, with that said - let me re-iterate lest this point be forgotten. What this man did was recklessly abuse his Freedom of Speech, inciting others to commit murder. For this, he should be tried - and if found guilty, should be punished. As a part of his punishment - I have no issue with stripping his Gun License. But, that is not what has happened.
Notice that I did not stop at saying that the 1st Amendent didn’t apply to threats. I also, clearly, stated that incitement was also off the table, and yes, his statements are certainly an incitement to violence.
When you are arrested, then you have a formal action that can be defended. You are formally charged with a crime, and the legal system can move forward to a Preliminary Hearing to see if the arrest has merit.
The preliminary hearing is held within a reasonable period of time - this is due process. The accused is formally charged, is given time to form a legal defense, and will have a preliminary hearing in which they are able to present their side.
The man in this story was given no warning - no option to present his side, no legal defense. His rights were stripped immediately. Again, why stop at his gun license? Why not take his car licence, his driver's license, seize his bank accounts?
Thus far, no formal charges have been made - yet consequences have been issued. What if, taken in it's entirety the judge rules that this person is innocent at the Preliminary hearing? You can take sentences from the Bible - out of context - that paint a very unflattering picture.
Again, based upon an accusation - his personal property has been removed from him (hint: this is a violation of his 6th Ammendments rights, personal property seized without due process).
Apparently, you don't see a whole lot of use for that nasty ol' Bill of Rights. You seem willing to surrender them up - based upon nothing but accusations; forgive me if I opt to demand that the Gov't follow the Constitution. After all, the Constitution's purpose is to limit the power of Gov't; lest it turn into a Dictatorship.
Bear in mind, what you allow the Police to do to someone else; can be done to you under the same rules. You seem willing to surrender your property to unelected officials merely based upon an accusation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.