It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arlington Man Loses Gun License Due To Blog About Tucson Shooting

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
You do not have a right to threaten others.
You have no right to make decisions on behalf of the American public. That's why we vote.
You have no right to demand revolution because your candidate was defeated.
also
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Do these have to be added as an amendment to the Constitution before you'll accept them or can you use a little common sense?


1. Again, no one was threatened. A threat requires an intent of action, and that intent is clearly missing.
2. Opinions are very different then decisions, please learn the difference.
3. Revolution merely means change, it does not mean violence. Yes this idiot thinks violence is the answer, and IMO that is wrong, but we all have a right to demand a revolution (a peaceful one that is), remember it's all part of the evolution.
4. You got one right, but he didn't yell fire, so your statement is non applicable.

Again, the only thing this guy is guilty of is making a stupid statement. He is protected under our constitution to do so, so until we pass laws outlawing stupidity, you'll just have to keep exercising your own personal freedoms by choosing not to read it.




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
This is AMERICA. We have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. With that being said, and just for the hell of it, I hope the other 534 die painful deaths and BURN IN HELL. How's that for free speech? Wow our rights are just a huge joke now.


Getting your point across is one thing. Wishing death on other human beings is another. You should know this is a reprehensible thing to say even if you're just trying to make a point.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
You do not have a right to threaten others.


Isn't this exactly what the public does when it gives the IRS the authority to put a gun to my head and tell me to pay up or go to jail?


Originally posted by damwel
You have no right to make decisions on behalf of the American public. That's why we vote.


Isn't making decisions on behalf of others exactly what you do when you vote? 51% gets to tell the other 49% what they can, can't, or must do? It precisely the reason that I will not force other people to do what they may or may not want to do that I don't vote.


Originally posted by damwel
You have no right to demand revolution because your candidate was defeated.


I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence.


Originally posted by damwel
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.


Touche. But that is not political speech, which is what seems to be under attack and it greatly concerns me.


Originally posted by damwel
Do these have to be added as an amendment to the Constitution before you'll accept them or can you use a little common sense?


If the government would have a little more respect for the Constitution, I'd be a little (not much) more willing to believe that they were acting in our interests. Unfortunately this does not appear to be the case.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
This is AMERICA. We have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. With that being said, and just for the hell of it, I hope the other 534 die painful deaths and BURN IN HELL. How's that for free speech? Wow our rights are just a huge joke now.


Careful there buddy. Your free speech is limited inside of a website with ToS. Of the 534 you want to die, there are probably 100+ that are good people who are not deserving of your rhetoric.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
This is AMERICA. We have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. With that being said, and just for the hell of it, I hope the other 534 die painful deaths and BURN IN HELL. How's that for free speech? Wow our rights are just a huge joke now.


Getting your point across is one thing. Wishing death on other human beings is another. You should know this is a reprehensible thing to say even if you're just trying to make a point.


I don't disagree with your sentiments, but even if what he said is reprehensible, it is not illegal.

Example:

Fact: Many people in the US wish death on Muslims. It's stupid thinking, but that thinking clearly exists, but again it is not against the law.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheFelt

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
This is AMERICA. We have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. With that being said, and just for the hell of it, I hope the other 534 die painful deaths and BURN IN HELL. How's that for free speech? Wow our rights are just a huge joke now.


Getting your point across is one thing. Wishing death on other human beings is another. You should know this is a reprehensible thing to say even if you're just trying to make a point.


I don't disagree with your sentiments, but even if what he said is reprehensible, it is not illegal.

Example:

Fact: Many people in the US wish death on Muslims. It's stupid thinking, but that thinking clearly exists, but again it is not against the law.


which is why he wasn't arrested but only had his gun license revoked.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheFelt

I don't disagree with your sentiments, but even if what he said is reprehensible, it is not illegal.


I'm not calling into question the legality of what he said. Rather, I am commenting on the complete lack of morality and ethics in such a statement.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

I'm not calling into question the legality of what he said. Rather, I am commenting on the complete lack of morality and ethics in such a statement.


I think most of us are in agreement that his blog post was despicable, but it doesn't give the government free reign to violate his rights by suspending his license and confiscating his weapons when he was never even charged with a crime. He committed no crime. The state is simply using their coercive power to shut him up.

And he should shut up, but no one should be able to force him to.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 


Exactamundo! Hence the reason for the thread.

We can't take away someone's gun permit because we don't like there message. 1+1 does not = 3.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by OnTheFelt

I don't disagree with your sentiments, but even if what he said is reprehensible, it is not illegal.


I'm not calling into question the legality of what he said. Rather, I am commenting on the complete lack of morality and ethics in such a statement.


Agreed! But again it does not constitute taking away someone's gun permit.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


wow....what you say now utilizing your right of free speech can result in your right to bear arms being taken away.....

but then again, he did threaten members of congress.....but in a sense he may be venting out against congress verbally with no real action intended to be behind it....I believe that anyone who threatens to use their gun in a violent, illegal way should have their gun taken away from them....but of course this does contradict our right to bear arms.....does make you think though...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


Don't be a dolt! If you can't see why "direct threats" should NOT be covered under free speech laws, then you have missed the boat!

Now, I don't see his as a direct threat... Although, it was very very close. He should have been checked into and maybe watched a little..

I could see the result if this guy 2 weeks from now, goes and kills another Congressman, everyone would hemorrhage if they found out this information was known without action...

Again... I think this mans words are borderline but not actually a threat.

Realistically he could just say it was wishful thinking.
edit on 1/19/2011 by Resurrectio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


That man was basically saying the attack was totally ok...while having guns himself. Of course they should revoke his license!!



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by no special characters
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


It's a stupid thing to say whatever the context. In comedy one would laugh at the stupidity of the remark. If ones emotions would be so great that he bursts out those words he damn well has to show that he can put his money where his mouth is or he will be the one to turn cold.

Words have value and if they are valued greater by the person at whom the words are directed to it's not unfair to expect the quarterback to pull out a gun and shoot the fan.

I'm sure you get my point. If not I will kill you.


I guess you've never been to a football game or any sporting event for that matter. Cries of get the ump or kill the ref go on all the time. Nobody expects anybody to actually go kill the ref nor the ref to turn around and shoot anybody.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

There is no such thing as a "gun license" in Virginia.
You can get a concealed weapons permit however.
Typically, the media cannot accurately report on anything regarding firearms.

The guy was a jerk to post such comments online.
Not only was it insensitive to the victims' families, but he's trying to turn a random mass shooting into a politically-motivated attack.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
More proof that to those who own a gun are not untouchable as gun ownership is a privleage and not necessarily a right where as if you are unstable or post suspicious things on the web they can take the license from you.

I care not your leaning no one deserves to get shot over some conscrewed political ideaology.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheFelt

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by NthOther
 


Threats are not protected speech. That is all.


Short, Concise and 100% accurate!


Wrong! Learn what constitutes a threat. This is not a threat.


Wrong! Under the USA Patriot Act it constitutes a terroristic threat.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I am NOT inciting violence here, just using this
statement as an analogy


If Travis had stated: 1 dead Taliban down, 534 to go,
would we even be having this discussion ???

Absolutely not !!! His words would have been ignored.
It was WHO he was referring to that made him an example.

And for the record, I do not believe it is right to
take away his guns and NOT charge him with
a crime.

While I do not agree with what Travis wrote on his blog.
I don't think the Police acted properly either.

Just busting into somebodies house and take their
weapons is nothing short of targeted Martial Law.

If I was in charge I would have done things differently.

I would have put Travis under 24/7 surveillance providing
he was not already and watch his every move and wait
for him to make his move on his threats. Once you prove
he had intent to harm another, then you have a case for
criminal charges. The way it is now, the authorities have
zilch. Taking Travis' guns does not mean he cannot get
more illegally.

The US Patriot Act is turning everyone into domestic
terrorists. This is so very wrong.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I hope you see the difference between saying the Taliban should be killed off and some random US politician being killed off



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I hope you see the difference between saying the Taliban should be killed off and some random US politician being killed off

aren't they both human beings ???
I am not standing up for the Taliban
by any means.

I am NOT advocating violence in any form
and do not wish to see anyone hurt.

All I'm saying is that if Travis had used the Taliban
instead of who he did, The authorities wouldn't have cared
if he made threats.

And the articles I read didn't make clear exactly what
license they were revoking. Was it a license to purchase
more firearms? or was it a concealed to carry license?
Or was a license to sell firearms? Or was it a license
to have fully automatic weapons?
I wish this fact would have been made clear.

In NC where I live, all CCW licensees have to pass a
psychological evaluation in order to carry concealed.
I do not know about the state where Travis is. And I
would agree with that, as I would not want mentally
unstable people toting around concealed firearms.
But some more hardcore gun rights activists would
argue that the constitution does not state you have
to be mentally stable to carry a weapon.

I guess the term "mentally unstable" was not a term
that was pondered on very much by our forefathers.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join