"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:33:11 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:
"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009
16:34:25 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:
"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:
snip
Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of
late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."
That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.
Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry
and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First
Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.
A rifle slung on your back, muzzle down, is not
threatening to shoot anybody... no matter how many
times you say it is. I might add, Period!
Of course not. We're talking about the discussion that you and Larry are
making here.
The threat you and Larry are making is to use the "cartridge box."
I never made such a threat. I merely acknowledged
his assessment of how an AR at a political rally might
be interpreted by some people.
Good dodge! And a wise move.
You did seem to be approving of that interpretation, however. Are you now
distancing yourself from it? Or did you never approve of it at all?
And if you don't approve of it, then that still leaves the question of what
the gun is all about in this "demonstration." Are you warning the
politicians with it? Larry sure is, based on his own words. Do you approve
or disapprove of his threat?
Larry wants to carry guns to remind politicians that he'll shoot and
kill them if he doesn't like what they do, and you agree.
Correct?
I look above, and can't find that anywhere.
Sure you can. Look again. First he says it's a "veiled threat." A veiled
threat means a real threat, in disguise.
Then he says that the purpose of this "demonstration" is to send a message
to politicians that, if they don't do what he wants, he's going to use a
"firmer hand." There must be something about the gun that enables his
"firmer hand," or there would be no relationship in all of this to the gun;
the gun would provide no "message" that relates to his statement. And guns
provide the force for a "firmer hand" when they're fired, or when you
threaten someone with firing the gun at them.
So Larry's message to politicians, with the veil removed and with the
euphemisms stripped out, is "do what I want or I'm going to shoot you."
There's no other sensible interpretation of that gun-speak, is there?
That's the "veil" he's talking about -- the disguise. It's a thinly
disguised expression that he's threatening to kill politicians if they don't
comply with his wishes.
To make such a statement in general is evidence that he's a loose cannon, if
you'll excuse the pun. To make such a statement and to direct it at an
individual -- say, to the President -- is a crime. I'm sure you recognize
this and, again, good for you for picking up on that and dodging the
specifics, attributing it to "some people," rather than to yourself, when
you realized what was being said. That was wise. I don't think that Larry
realizes it even now.
What I do say is that such speech is protected by the
1st Amendment... which as I'm sure you're aware was
written surrounded by discussion of political speech
in particular.
Yeah, I'm aware of the origins of the First Amendment, and I'm aware that,
as they say, your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Your free-speech
rights hit the wall at the point where you're making physical threats to
individuals, which is the thin ice Larry is skating on. This discussion
includes a lot of "veiled threats" combined with a lot of discussion about
Obama. As you undoubtedly sense, it's risky to assume the collected things
you and Larry have said here cannot be used to draw a direct connection
between the two. Attributing the statements to "some people" probably will
do the job. Of course, that's unless there's also a direct connection
between the things you've said here and the things you attribute to "some
people." For example, you wouldn't want to say that you agree with the "some
people." You haven't, have you?
If not, what are you going to do with your gun to "steer [the
politicians]
with a firmer hand"?
I didn't write that, nor did I explicitly agree with
it. I merely pointed out that in your ideal world,
such would not protected by the 1st Amendment.
That's a syntactically awkward sentence, but are you saying that *I'm*
saying that physical threats are not protected by the First Amendment? If
that's what you're saying, then you're correct, in cases where the threat is
directed at an individual or a specific group of individuals. "Politicians"
isn't specific enough to be a potential problem. "Congress," or "Obama," is.
Lucky for the rest of the country, we still have a
1st Amendment that allows people to criticize specific
pieces of legislation, politicians, and even their
governments in general; yes, even to the point of
reiterating the Declaration of Independence.
We still do have that right... even if you wish we
didn't.
I'm very glad we have those rights. But where in the Declaration of
Independence does it say we have a right to shoot our politicians? My copy
doesn't say anything like that. What my copy says, to boil it down, is that
the King has "waged war on the people of the American Colonies, and
therefore he and his government can go **** up a rope. Get lost."
Jefferson was far more eloquent but a bit wordy. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress