We read:
"After being notified of Arlington resident Travis Corcoran’s controversial blog post in which he implied members of Congress ought to be shot, the Arlington Police Department (APD) has placed a suspension on his license to carry firearms and seized all of his weapons.
Corcoran wrote and uploaded a post to his blog, tjic.com, following the Jan. 8 shooting of United States Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson titled '1 down, 534 to go,' suggesting the other 534 members of Congress should be next....
Bongiorno said Corcoran has a 90-day window in which he can appeal the suspension in court. Corcoran declined to comment on the investigation in a follow-up call Tuesday night.
In his interview last week, Corcoran said while he did not regret the blog post, he does not actually believe violence against politicians is an effective method of reforming government.
Source
The cops knew it was an opinion, not a threat, but they pretended otherwise just to show what good little lickspittles they are.
12 comments:
Stucco Holmes you're definitely not an NRA member are you?
Too bad, I am and I firmly believe that guns or words don't kill people despite all the Liberal rhetoric to the contrary.
Crazy Mother-F***ers kill people.
"Crazy Mother-F***ers kill people."
Agreed. Where do you draw the line between your run of the mill idiots with guns and "Crazy Mother-F***ers" with guns?
I have no problem with gun ownership. Some day they may be very useful if we are invaded by ____________.
Stucco Holmes said...
"Yay. One less armed idiot."
Or, one more American citizen having his freedom and liberty infringed upon? His comment, even though you obviously don't like it, is "protected speech". And guess what. It's from our Constitution, a document given to us by other armed idiots a long time ago. In fact, it's because of armed idiots that you have the right to come here and voice your opinions.
WORD OF THE DAY
SOCIALISM, n.
A political philosophy which, despite a long history of spectacular failures, continues to be disinterred then re-animated, by lunatic lefty Frankensteins who willfully ignore the lessons taught by history.
"...voice your opinions."
Hey We the People, I guess you didn't not see my post at 1:58 AM.
Making threats against somebody or a group of people vs. speaking your mind in a civilized manner are two different things. Again, where you you draw the line between some idiot shooting is mouth of vs. the "Crazy Motherf***er"? Do have some sort of standard of who should have guns and who should not?
"Do have some sort of standard of who should have guns and who should not?"
I take that as a question, Stucco even though your syntax is lousy.
Currently every State and the federal governmant has "standard" evaluations of those who wish to LEGALLY purchase a weapon.
Some States are stricter than others, however all must vete the potentian weapon owner through a Federal database.
But may ask: "why bother when I can go to any large or even medium sized city and buy one on a street corner?" (See the movie: Taxi Driver). There's more truth to Travis Bikle's purchase than you can imagine. And that movie was made 35-years ago, when illegal weapons were a much smaller commodity on the market.
The point is that you can't eliminate
1) Crazy Mother-F***ers.
2) Crazy Mother-F***ers buying guns.
3) Crazy Mother-F***ers killing innocent people.
The only thing you can do is minimize the damage.
"The only thing you can do is minimize the damage."
What is your proposal to do that?
BTW, sorry for the grammatical errors. I was typing too fast. My bad.
The US doesn't need to legislate to remove guns from civilians. All they need to do is revue their background and find an excuse to disarm them. Perectly legitmate and would prove a boon to lawyers.
I hope the NRA brings a case against this act of injustice
I would like to know who should have guns and who should not.
Is it OK for criminals to have guns?
There are already laws in place that prohibit felons from possessing firearms.
The Constitution's 2nd Amendment was based on the individual's right to protect themselves. their property and their country.
Certainly a criminal who wants to rob or shoot another is not interested in any of the above. In fact, a criminal is more likely to use a weapon do deprive a person of their rights than protect them.
Is it OK for the mentally ill to have guns?
Define "mentally ill."
Is it OK for idiots who make threats to have guns?
I switched the order of your questions as this one might take a little bit to answer.
First, you must first define "idiot." You first said that the individual in this story was an "idiot." I would ask you what you are basing that assessment upon?
Is it because you disagree with them? Is it because they are avail themselves of their Second Amendment rights?
I also ask you "what is a threat?"
We see people every day who mutter "man, I could kill them." Is that a threat? Is that rhetoric? Is that an empty statement?
Is the statement "1 down, 534 to go" a threat? If so, against whom? Who specifically?
Making a credible threat is illegal. Making a threat against a government official has less of a threshold, but it is still illegal.
In this case, the authorities, by their actions in not arresting or charging the man with making a threat, concede that the comment of "1 down, 534 to go" is not a threat.
Therefore, under what premise do the police have to violate this guy's rights?
There is none. That is what is wrong here. There is no threat. The police's actions are against a man exercising free speech.
Lest you think that is an outlandish statement, don't forget that the Founding Fathers were well aware of the cries of "Death to King George!" and the burning of George and other government officials in effigy. They saw those words and actions as protected, free, political speech.
You ask "is it okay for idiots to have guns?" While it may be a fair question on some level, the question does not apply to this gentleman. Your disagreement with him does not make him an "idiot." The fact that he is making exercising his free speech does not make him an idiot. The fact that he is a gun owner does not make him an idiot.
Until you define what an "idiot" is, and how being an idiot is not protected by the Constitution, your question cannot be answered.
"Until you define what an "idiot" is, and how being an idiot is not protected by the Constitution, your question cannot be answered."
The term was used loosely.
"1 down, 534 to go" written by Corcoran in light of the Tucson shooting was in poor taste. I think to myself, "what was that guy thinking? What an idiot."
There are consequences for free speech. Veiled threats, implied threats, both up to interpretation, but still protected speech. But they do come with a consequence. I guess the authorities in this case have a zero-tolerance policy. Better safe than sorry. Perhaps disarming him was the wrong consequence. There are many other ways to implement a "1 down, 534 to go" scenario without the use of firearms. Voting is the preferable method. It was quite effective last November.
Is this where the line should be drawn? I don't know without truly understanding the situation. My posts provided 3 examples as part of a continuum: guns are fine all the way to guns are not fine. I was interested in the responses from this group.
Anon 5:23, thank you for your well thought out response. It got me thinking along your lines.
I think to myself, "what was that guy thinking? What an idiot."
Fair enough. Without trying to sound condescending, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.
There are consequences for free speech.
This is one of those statements that needs to be broken down. There may be consequences for what some people think is "free speech." For example, people think that they have the right to say whatever they want on in the comments section of a blog because it is "free speech." It is not. People don't have the right to say what they want in your home. You can tell them to leave. The same thing is true for places within the public domain. "Free speech" doesn't cover you from calling your boss a moron.
The First Amendment protects free speech from consequences from the government. Period.
That is what is wrong with this story. There was no threat - real or implied - and there is a history of such speech in our country as being protected.
What you characterized as possibly being "zero tolerance" scares the tar out of me. As I stated, because they police did not arrest the guy for a threat made against a public official (which I doubt they could prove anyway) the government came and trampled on the legal rights of this guy because they didn't like what was said. They, like you, may have thought that he was or is an idiot. Their belief doesn't give them the right to trample on his rights.
Being an idiot is Constitutionally protected.
I agree with you that there are consequences to "free speech," but when the government tramples upon the First Amendment right of citizens, the consequences should not fall upon the citizen, but the government.
Post a Comment