Nutter herps and derps, TE suspends his carry permit

[Stephanie]

Words are so scary.

**** the 1st Amendment too.

This may shock the hell out of you, but there have been limitations on our First Amendment rights throughout a good part of our history.

Yep. Somebody has never heard of not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

 

[theHawk]

If this guy really is a maniac that will start killing people, obviously taking away his "permit" will prevent him from doing so.


Carry on, dipshits.

So, TN should just let him go on with his threats unchecked.

No, if the threats are serious then he should be taken off the streets and jailed.

Do you think taking away his permission to carry a gun will stop him from killing someone?

 

[uscitizen]

This may shock the hell out of you, but there have been limitations on our First Amendment rights throughout a good part of our history.

Yep. Somebody has never heard of not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

Not necessary illegal but not protected under the first ammendment, unless the theatre really is on fire.
that is a supreme court decision.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This may shock the hell out of you, but there have been limitations on our First Amendment rights throughout a good part of our history.

Yep. Somebody has never heard of not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

Witness the brilliance!

 

[J.E.D]

This may shock the hell out of you, but there have been limitations on our First Amendment rights throughout a good part of our history.

Yep. Somebody has never heard of not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Schenck case

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

You were saying something about dipshits?

 

[paperview]

Yep. Somebody has never heard of not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

Witness the brilliance!

The illumination has been engaged, but the domicile is void of habitation.

 

[J.E.D]

If this guy really is a maniac that will start killing people, obviously taking away his "permit" will prevent him from doing so.


Carry on, dipshits.

So, TN should just let him go on with his threats unchecked.

No, if the threats are serious then he should be taken off the streets and jailed.

Do you think taking away his permission to carry a gun will stop him from killing someone?

Do you think that a state shouldn't take steps to try and curtail people from threatening to kill people?

 

[Stephanie]

Yep. Somebody has never heard of not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Schenck case

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

You were saying something about dipshits?

man, you had to dig for that one

 

[OODA_Loop]

So, TN should just let him go on with his threats unchecked.

No, if the threats are serious then he should be taken off the streets and jailed.

Do you think taking away his permission to carry a gun will stop him from killing someone?

Do you think that a state shouldn't take steps to try and curtail people from threatening to kill people?

"If I hear hear one more racial slur against the President, I am going to start killing people"

What specific administrative action should the State take ?

 

[paperview]

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Schenck case

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

You were saying something about dipshits?

man, you had to dig for that one

Not really. Just about everyone knows about the "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater" First Amendment restriction.

You must be very young. Or stupid.

Or both.

 

[Ravi]

If this guy was a foot shorter and 200 lbs heavier I would have sworn it was buggerreb.

 

[Stephanie]

You were saying something about dipshits?

man, you had to dig for that one

Not really. Just about everyone knows about the "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater" First Amendment restriction.

You must be very young. Or stupid.

Or both.

LOL, still DOESN'T mean you can't...
so who is the stupid one

 

[J.E.D]

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Schenck case

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

You were saying something about dipshits?

man, you had to dig for that one

Right. I had to dig deep to find a case that anybody with half a brain knows about.

 

[paperview]

No, if the threats are serious then he should be taken off the streets and jailed.

Do you think taking away his permission to carry a gun will stop him from killing someone?

Do you think that a state shouldn't take steps to try and curtail people from threatening to kill people?

"If I hear hear one more racial slur against the President, I am going to start killing people"

What specific administrative action should the State take ?

Usually it starts with an investigation.

Should threats to kill people in the general populace be ignored?

 

[J.E.D]

man, you had to dig for that one

Not really. Just about everyone knows about the "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater" First Amendment restriction.

You must be very young. Or stupid.

Or both.

LOL, still DOESN'T mean you can't...
so who is the stupid one

It's not meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor for restrictions on free speech. Talk to the SC justice who wrote it.

 

[paperview]

man, you had to dig for that one

Not really. Just about everyone knows about the "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater" First Amendment restriction.

You must be very young. Or stupid.

Or both.

LOL, still DOESN'T mean you can't...
so who is the stupid one

Of course it doesn't mean you can't loophead.

Just like making laws against killing people doesn't mean you can't.

Just be ready for the inevitable repercussions.

 

[Article 15]

This may shock the hell out of you, but there have been limitations on our First Amendment rights throughout a good part of our history.

Yep. Somebody has never heard of not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

It's amazing that you can remember to breathe.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Do you think that a state shouldn't take steps to try and curtail people from threatening to kill people?

"If I hear hear one more racial slur against the President, I am going to start killing people"

What specific administrative action should the State take ?

Usually it starts with an investigation.

Should threats to kill people in the general populace be ignored?

Well certainly not the ones that advance your emotional reckoning and positions.

 

[Stephanie]

Yep. Somebody has never heard of not yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Is there some law that say's you can't? dipshit

It's amazing that you can remember to breathe.

it's nice you can remember to troll since you do nothing else

 

[paperview]

"If I hear hear one more racial slur against the President, I am going to start killing people"

What specific administrative action should the State take ?

Usually it starts with an investigation.

Should threats to kill people in the general populace be ignored?

Well certainly not the ones that advance your emotional reckoning and positions.

What a bizarre response.