Arlington Man Loses Gun License Due To Blog About Tucson Shooting

[danarhea]

ARLINGTON (CBS) – A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.


It was the headline “1 down and 534 to go” that caught the attention. “One” refers to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in the rampage, while 534 refers to the other members of the U.S. House and Senate.

The fruitcakes are still out there, and this particular fruitcake needs to be in jail for threatening the lives of Congresspersons. I am waiting for people to post in this thread about the poor man's first amendment rights being trampled.

And here is the problem. Along with rights come responsibilities. Of course, there are some who have the right to scream without consequences. They are babies of course. They scream if they want their diaper changed. They scream if they are hungry. They scream if the can't have access to their favorite toy. And that's OK. After all, we are talking about a baby here. As a child grows into a man or woman, the paradigm changes, as responsibility is taught. And grownups just don't claim a first amendment right to advocate murder of government officials. As far as the Second Amendment goes, this Bozo just forfeited his right to it. Again, this is about responsibility. Should criminals be allowed to have guns? Important question, since what this man advocated on his blog is definitely criminal.

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

I really want to see if anyone is going to defend this. My bet is that nobody in his right mind will.

Discussion?

Article is here.

 

[apdst]

The thought/speech police have been officially deployed. Good thing this crisis hasn't gone to waste.

 

[The Prof]

much more significantly, when's someone gonna pull this guy's license

Video: Matthews muses on killing Rush Limbaugh « Hot Air

 

[Iron River]

This guy is welcome to think and say what he wants but as a person who has carried a hand gun for over forty years, with and without a license, I think that people carrying guns in public should exhibit the highest level of rational thinking and posting such comments in public is a little crazy.

 

[BCR]

This guy is welcome to think and say what he wants but as a person who has carried a hand gun for over forty years, with and without a license, I think that people carrying guns in public should exhibit the highest level of rational thinking and posting such comments in public is a little crazy.

makes me feel comfortable about our gun laws.

 

[TurtleDude]

sound thinking-I agree

 

[TurtleDude]

makes me feel comfortable about our gun laws.

in most states you can carry a gun openly without a license
in most states you can carry a gun concealed in your place of business or during some occupations without a license

 

[Barbbtx]

This is ridiculous in my opinion and possibly unconstitutional.
Are we going to search everyone's home who has made similar comments on the internet? Granted, I didn't see his words in context to form an opinion as to whether or not it was something to be taken seriously.
Is his blog out there somewhere?

 

[jamesrage]

I have to wonder why does an American citizen even need a license for a constitutional right that says shall not infringe on the end of it. He should keep his firearm, he has no obligation to follow an unconstitutional law and he should keep his firearm due to the fact he has not been arrested.

 

[StillBallin75]

I have to wonder why does an American citizen even need a license for a constitutional right that says shall not infringe on the end of it. He should keep his firearm, he has no obligation to follow an unconstitutional law and he should keep his firearm due to the fact he has not been arrested.

The simple answers, I personally believe rights come with responsibilities. The First Amendment protects free speech to a certain degree, but it is not unlimited (classic example yelling fire in a theater). Likewise, gun ownership is also a right that comes with responsibilities.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

This guy is welcome to think and say what he wants but as a person who has carried a hand gun for over forty years, with and without a license, I think that people carrying guns in public should exhibit the highest level of rational thinking and posting such comments in public is a little crazy.

A little? We should lock a person who carries a gun in public and threatens people in jail forever

 

[TurtleDude]

A little? We should lock a person who carries a gun in public and threatens people in jail forever

well if someone is gonna get a life sentence for merely threatening someone what would stop them from wasting the person since that is going to get them the same sentence

its why smart people are against the death penalty for kidnap or rape-if you make either a capital crime you almost guarantee the victim of either crime will be killed

 

[jamesrage]

The simple answers, I personally believe rights come with responsibilities. The First Amendment protects free speech to a certain degree, but it is not unlimited (classic example yelling fire in a theater). Likewise, gun ownership is also a right that comes with responsibilities.

The 2nd amendment equivalent to yelling fire in a crowd is shooting your gun off at 3AM for no apparent reason or using your gun to commit murder. The government has no business making you get a license in order to exercise a constitutional right(notice I said constitutional right and not privilege) when that right says shall not be infringed at the end of it. Advising potential criminals to not shoot bystanders is hardly and offense,therefore the police have no business revoking his right to keep and bear arms.

 

[StillBallin75]

The 2nd amendment equivalent to yelling fire in a crowd is shooting your gun off at 3AM for no apparent reason or using your gun to commit murder. The government has no business making you get a license in order to exercise a constitutional right(notice I said constitutional right and not privilege). Advising potential criminals to not shoot bystanders is hardly and offense,therefore the police have no business revoking his right to keep and bear arms.

The operative phrase was "Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone." Maybe he shouldn't have his license revoked. But they should definitely keep an eye on him. But personally I believe that gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right. That's another story though.

 

[Barbbtx]

well if someone is gonna get a life sentence for merely threatening someone what would stop them from wasting the person since that is going to get them the same sentence

its why smart people are against the death penalty for kidnap or rape-if you make either a capital crime you almost guarantee the victim of either crime will be killed

Have I missed something?
Did this guy come out and specifically threaten someone, or did he make a stupid comment on a blog about how congress should all be shot?

 

[apdst]

makes me feel comfortable about our gun laws.

Carrying an unconcealed weapon isn't illegal. Refer to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[apdst]

well if someone is gonna get a life sentence for merely threatening someone what would stop them from wasting the person since that is going to get them the same sentence

its why smart people are against the death penalty for kidnap or rape-if you make either a capital crime you almost guarantee the victim of either crime will be killed

Not all criminals have what it takes to kill someone. Death penalty, or not.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The simple answers, I personally believe rights come with responsibilities. The First Amendment protects free speech to a certain degree, but it is not unlimited (classic example yelling fire in a theater). Likewise, gun ownership is also a right that comes with responsibilities.

If he has broken the law, he should suffer the civil and criminal penalties for having done so. If he has not broken the law, the government has no business restricting his human rights.

 

[repeter]

The fruitcakes are still out there, and this particular fruitcake needs to be in jail for threatening the lives of Congresspersons. I am waiting for people to post in this thread about the poor man's first amendment rights being trampled.

And here is the problem. Along with rights come responsibilities. Of course, there are some who have the right to scream without consequences. They are babies of course. They scream if they want their diaper changed. They scream if they are hungry. They scream if the can't have access to their favorite toy. And that's OK. After all, we are talking about a baby here. As a child grows into a man or woman, the paradigm changes, as responsibility is taught. And grownups just don't claim a first amendment right to advocate murder of government officials. As far as the Second Amendment goes, this Bozo just forfeited his right to it. Again, this is about responsibility. Should criminals be allowed to have guns? Important question, since what this man advocated on his blog is definitely criminal.



I really want to see if anyone is going to defend this. My bet is that nobody in his right mind will.

Discussion?

Article is here.

You know, taken in context of everything that's happened, and after reading the guy's statements, I would consider them true threats, and therefore unprotected speech, ie he can be held legally liable for them.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

well if someone is gonna get a life sentence for merely threatening someone what would stop them from wasting the person since that is going to get them the same sentence

its why smart people are against the death penalty for kidnap or rape-if you make either a capital crime you almost guarantee the victim of either crime will be killed

Well, I oppose the death penalty for serious crimes, not because I think it's inhumane, but because I think it's too good for these convicts. They should get life imprisonment with horrible food, 23 hours in a small cell, terrible treatment, brutal guards. These monsters shouldn't get a peaceful, painless, quick death. They deserve life in punishment.

However, that's another story.

My position about this is very simple.

He may have not shot anybody, but nevertheless, he's dangerous. Nobody arrrested him. He just lost his gun license, not probably the end of life for someone. People even have and carry guns without licenses, like someone proudly said earlier in this thread. There's a good reason to take precautions. For example, if someone with a gun threatens to shoot another person, would you not arrest himn? Or at least revoke his gun license? Would you wait until he shot someone that you would arrest him or revoke his gun license? There's good reasons why people suspected of supporting terrorism are arrested, and why communists in SK are arrested. They might have not committed the crime, but they have much more possibility of doing so than regular people. We must not take chances.

 

[E_Pluribus_Venom]

"Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone."

.... at what point are you people going to seriously consider real threats? Good Lord.

 

[jamesrage]

"Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone."

.... at what point are you people going to seriously consider real threats? Good Lord.

It looks like he is pleading with potential murderers to not shoot bystanders, not a threat to politicians themselves.

 

[repeter]

It looks like he is pleading with potential murderers to not shoot bystanders, not a threat to politicians themselves.

If only he only said that portion though right?

He also said 1 down, 534 more to go. Who knows what that means :roll:

 

[Barbbtx]

UFC Fighter Jacob Volkmann Calls Out President Barack Obama, Gets A Visit From the Secret Service

More crazy ****. They may as well put duct tape over our mouths. That would be quicker than repealing the first amendment.

 

[Barbbtx]

It looks like he is pleading with potential murderers to not shoot bystanders, not a threat to politicians themselves.

:rofl That makes as much sense as thinking he did anything other than make an insensitive comment about the shooting in Tuscon.
The guy was already being boycotted because of it. That should have been good enough and a lesson to him.