View the comments

[Nosmo King]

That's a bit of a stretch, especially in this context.

Not necessarily. I mean, with the internet, talk radio, political punditry so thick you have to brush it away from your eyes, some nuts (usually disenfranchised loners with little potential for intellectual growth) can be molded into real threats. Most of these folks couldn't pass an eighth grade civics pop quiz, and yet they are filled to the brim with extremist speech and suddenly, voilà! they're constitutional scholars! Just look at some of the creeps on this board. They couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag, and yet they are spouting vitriol because they have been told nothing but vitriol.

It's a long way from entitlement programs to political assassinations. Unless you're willing to omit all the logic and reason it would take to draw the conclusion.

Logic? Reason? Wash your mouth out with soap, young man.

Bless your heart! You called me "young man"!

 

[uptownlivin90]

We don't take away rights until someone is found guilty of something in the court of law. We have rule of law for a reason. To keep people safe. Liberals find themselves complaining about George Bush trying to detain people indefinitely without charging anyone due to the "War on Terrorism". So why don't you have an issue with people's rights being stripped away when they haven't been charged or convicted.

Are you people freaking reading the story? SERIOUSLY? Look at what happened, the police raid this man's home, arrested him, DIDN'T CHARGE HIM WITH ANYTHING, and then somehow temporarily suspended his Second Amendment Rights by suspending his license. This is a man with NO criminal history what-so-ever, and you mean to tell me it's THAT EASY for the government to come in and say it's to dangerous for you to have weapons so we're taking your right to protect yourself away?

When the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment do you really think this is what they had in mind?

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Or should it say:
"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless we feel like it."

It's absolutely insane to defend this.

 

[blastoff]

Um...lemme see if I've got this right. The guy made what has been construed as threatening comments on his blog, so the cops paid him a visit, found he had an arsenal of weapons, and took his gun license (licenses?) away?

Does that mean if this guy is a kook and decides to back up his threats with action he won't really do it because he no longer has a license? I mean, you know, he'd be breaking the law shooting without a license.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Like paying for the health care of veterans?

I feel an obligation to those that I do not feel with 3rd generation welfare frauds.

Me, too...put it is really the only logical thing you could apply the third amendment to in this conversation.

Its the internet, they may see the debt as an unwelcome monkey on there back and stretch the meaning , its been done before.
It is clear that the blogger is not entirely isolated in his disdain.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I got as far as them discussing his 3rd Amendment rights and gave up. At the second comment. WTF are people smoking?

But temporarily suspending his license pending investigation is the sane thing to do, IMO. We've all heard of copycats. If they find no indication of a credible threat or that he's a danger to himself or others, then he should get it back. But not until it's fully investigated.

So once you're accused you're guilty until proven innocent? What right do they have to step on this man's First and Second Amendment rights without the burden of proof that he's done anything wrong other than publish some words on the Internet? If I were him I'd sue the Arlington PD.

"I'm going to set the church on fire!" Should the police stop me at the gas station as I fill the gallon container, when I go inside to buy the matches, as I pour the gasoline on the church steps, or after I strike the match?

Did he say he was going to go out and shoot someone? No. All he said was 1 down, 534 to go. There is no direct threat in those words, just a stated opinion.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So once you're accused you're guilty until proven innocent? What right do they have to step on this man's First and Second Amendment rights without the burden of proof that he's done anything wrong other than publish some words on the Internet? If I were him I'd sue the Arlington PD.

"I'm going to set the church on fire!" Should the police stop me at the gas station as I fill the gallon container, when I go inside to buy the matches, as I pour the gasoline on the church steps, or after I strike the match?

Did he say he was going to go out and shoot someone? No. All he said was 1 down, 534 to go. There is no direct threat in those words, just a stated opinion.

“It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.”

Thats pretty much an implied threat.

 

[goldcatt]

"I'm going to set the church on fire!" Should the police stop me at the gas station as I fill the gallon container, when I go inside to buy the matches, as I pour the gasoline on the church steps, or after I strike the match?

Did he say he was going to go out and shoot someone? No. All he said was 1 down, 534 to go. There is no direct threat in those words, just a stated opinion.

“It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.”

Thats pretty much an implied threat.

More than pretty much. By itself it's not quite incitement, but who knows what we don't know?

And if there's an ongoing investigation, I can 100% guarantee we do not have all the facts here. My crazy detector tells me there are mental evaluations going on, but the press certainly would not be alerted to any details of what they actually found that could be confidential or mess up a potential criminal proceeding.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Its the internet , we have 100 % of the facts!

 

[goldcatt]

What was I thinking?

That's the corollary to "If it's on the internets, it has to be true".

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I dont think you are taking this shit seriously , Im going to have to neg you.

 

[goldcatt]

Negged?

Noooooo!

My life will crumble, my world fall apart and I might even get a hangnail.

Damn you, Mr. Fitnah! *shakes tiny cyber fist*

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Thank you treating this in the somber mood it deserves.