Skip to main content

View Diary: Crazy Gun CEO Apologizes With Attorney (268 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The First Amendment is not an absolute protection (30+ / 0-)

    for speech. If a nut job starts bloviating about killing people, that is NOT protected speech.

    WTF!?!?!?! When did I move to the Republic of Gilead?!

    by IARXPHD on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:29:15 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Are we not a nation of law? Does not the law (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah

      require due process?  He had a separate unalienable right abrogated without being charged or convicted of a crime.

      Hell, I'm not saying he should have access to any firearms, in fact, his rant may cross the line into mental deficiency where he could be a danger to himself and others.  

      Even in that case, he'd have to be brought before a court, right?

      Once adjudicated mentally defective, then take his rights away for his own protection.

      Shouldn't this be the process? Or has that line been irrevocably crossed?

      https://www.commondreams.org/...

      Holder said "that a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to 'due process' and that the Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against depriving a citizen of his or her life without due process of law does not mandate a 'judicial process.'"
      You guys are really starting to scare the shit out of me.

      We can't loose sight of what and who we are as a nation because of your bigotry and hatred for guns. It's truly blinding too many people right now.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:15:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's not his guns (20+ / 0-)

        don't you see that? It's because he publicly advocated for using his guns--and other people using theirs--to overthrow the government.

        To start an insurrection.

        He was calling for a war.

        Do you think he would have rather had the FBI on his doorstep demanding an explanation? Frankly, losing his carry permit is a pretty light punishment.

        Look, even I understand that threatening to violently overthrow the government is not covered by freedom of speech.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:30:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, I listened to his rant...where did he say (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bluesee

          he was going to attack our government and establish some other form of rule here?

          I really need that part pointed out to me.

          Threatening to overthrow our government is speech, not doing or acting....there is a very real difference and linie here that I'm unwilling to see be destroyed, even though I completely disagree with the content of this man's speech.

          It goes to our historical past with the Alien and Sedition Acts, remember them?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Look, if I wrote papers and took out ads calling for the nullification of our current constitution, would that be insurrection? Or is it only that when force is also mentioned?  

          Say my ad says:

          "I demand the government's rule book be revoked and we must march upon Washington NOW."

          Is that threatening revolution?

          I'm having a hard time with the theoretical empty threats this lunatic made with real actions of gathering up mercenaries and marching into DC.  The Whiskey Rebellion comes to mind, this idiot didn't even come close to such actions.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:53:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "you" come for my guns (13+ / 0-)

            I am going to kill you....

            I am ready to take the 1st shot...

            inciting others to kill

            how many more examples do you need which were very clear and which you choose to ignore.

            mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

            by wewantthetruth on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:45:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "you" being the federal government (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tfill, Vote4Obamain2012

              he is obviously responding to the push for greater gun control in Washington.

              if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 09:53:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I need you to provide me with current (0+ / 0-)

              laws or new SC interpretations that have negated Brandenburg v. Ohio:

              http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

              Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for, as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, supra, at 364: "The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press, and is equally fundamental." See also United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 513, 519 (1939); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-461 (1958).

              And here I thought we were a reality based community that stood for the rule of law AND the Bill of Rights.

              Since that's how I define being a Progressive.  Show me baby the law, not your manufactured re-interpretations hell bent on destroying what's left of that damn piece of paper.

              Show me how anything he said rises to that level again?  YOU claim that's what he was doing.  It's clear he was ranting and blowing off steam.  He didn't call forth his mercenaries, he didn't demand people take up arms and start shooting, he didn't DO anything but he dd SAY a lot of bullshit.

              When will you get THAT point here?  Freedom of speech AND CURRENT legal interpretations protect that speech.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 05:41:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  too bad you don't chose to read and take in (0+ / 0-)

                a lot of the thoughtful, well put together posts on response to your's.

                this is neither a 1st or 2nd amendment issue, end of story, period. not sure what you don't get about that but outside of his own lawyer, no one has told the asshat to STFU.

                Go back and watch the video carefully and try and listen to it with someone else's viewpoint other than your own.

                he clearly states he will kill people and encourages others to act as well.

                this fucker goes off and kills a few dozen people, what would you say then or just as bad, someone else that heard his bullshit goes off and they are inspired (by him and his words) and they go off and kill a few dozen people.

                Yes, madmen have rights to but he did say he would kill people.

                mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

                by wewantthetruth on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 09:33:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  John Brown (6+ / 0-)

            You make valid points, I suppose there was no way to stop the abolitionist John Brown, either.

            Just as a wave of insanity overcame the abolitionists and secessionists both in the mid-1800's, fomenting the Civil War, I see potential seeds of the next civil war in this man's words.

            He may be free to say what he said, but I think we all agree that fomenting an uprising whilst owning an arsenal (and teaching SWAT and other paramilitary tactics) is a threat to our way of life.

            I think he is on very thin ice here.

      •  as someone who is belongs to (7+ / 0-)

        "rights to bear arms" group (you), would expect nothing less than what you posted but you are .

        the guy made a threat, a mass threat, he got what he deserved and I support the 2nd amendment 100%.

        this slippery slope gun nuts use to try and create fear is absolutely ludicrous.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:43:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •   "truly blinding too many people right now" (3+ / 0-)

        None are so blind as though who refuse to see. Dude has a lawyer, and even he and his lawyer don't agree with you. That puts you someplace really close to a minority of one. That is supposed to humbling.

        One of the things that 42 USC 1983 exists for is to provide a remedy for the "problem" that you (and maybe no one else) see. It even allows for a prevailing Plainitff to collect attorneys fees. But, of course, there has to be a real violation. This is a case where i would bet in favor of the government, and where, at worst, $1.00 in damages would be awarded.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:30:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site