"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:25:58 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

You're part of the background noise, like a fan in a crowd at a sports
event
who gives encouragement to your favorite team. You give encouragement by
saying things that support the threat -- you say "Please stay in line and
heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll have to steer you with a
firmer hand," (as an explanation for carrying guns at a political rally)
and, avoiding attributing it to yourself, you say you're "glad" they're
saying it. That's part of what breaks down civil discourse and that
threatens "the security of a free state." The punks standing behind the
bully is a more appropriate metaphor, but the effect is like the cheers
from
the fans.

Whether anyone is listening to you and will act directly upon your
support
is not the question, nor the circumstance. You're adding one more voice
to
Gunner's "100 million friends" who he believes are going to support a
revolution. It's incitement with deniability. Good move. Like Steve,
you're
keeping yourself out of the line of fire while making clear you support
those who voice their threats.

I support the right of free speech, even when/if I
don't agree with it.

You've set up a strawman here, Steve. No one here has suggested that
anyone's free speech should be infringed. And you have said yourself that
you recognize that free speech -- from your mouth or from your gun -- ends
where one threatens another person. You've said that would be "crossing the
line," to use your words.

Despite that, with all of the bobbing and weaving going on here you may not
even remember that you have acknowledged that Christopher Broughton, the
Arizona gun-toter, was making a veiled threat that most people recognize,
but that you believe the threat is protected by the First Amendment. You've
contradicted yourself: you've said that he made no threat, but then said
that he did make a recognized threat, which you consider to be protected
speech.

Maybe we should give you a reminder, so you can see the pieces all in one
place:

About Broughton's "demonstration," Larry says:

"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."

To which Steve responds:

"That probably is the way most people would interpret it. Apparently in Ed's
world, such a message falls outside the 1st Amendment."

You're right about that latter point. And that's the way it is throughout
the US, not just in my world. A veiled threat to "steer" an individual with
a gun is a violation of the law everywhere in this country. A veiled threat
is a real threat in disguise. And "steering" with a gun is a thinly veiled
threat to someone that you'll shoot, in this case, if your "wishes" aren't
heeded. Otherwise, there is no point to the gun; as a form of "speech," it
would have no meaning. How else do you "steer" someone to adhere to your
wishes with a gun, except by threatening to use it against them?

Flag burning, open carry, whatever
form that speech/message takes, as long as it doesn't
cross the line. Neither flag burning, nor carrying at
a political rally cross the line out of the realm of
political speech. Period.

Right. But as I noted above, you acknowledge that the interpretation most
people would make of Broughton's actions is that it is a veiled threat. If
most people think it's a threat, that's a definition of the "reasonable
person" criterion for acting on possibly ambiguous, but dangerous, actions
by unknown persons. It's the defense you would use yourself if you had shot
and killed someone who was waving a gun at you while demanding your money.
Physical threats are over the line.

I wouldn't attribute this contradiction to the fact that you don't
understand it, but rather to the fact that you've taken an untenable
position and that those often lead to inescapable contradictions. That's
where your argument is at this moment.

For the record, and to exercise my own First Amendment rights g, I don't
believe you think this is a First Amendment issue at all. You see it as a
Second Amendment issue, and the First is just a red herring. But that's just
an opinion on my part. You recognize that expressing what you really think
about the use of the Second -- that it gives individuals license to threaten
political leaders if they upset you enough -- violates the very thing our
forefathers fought and died for, which is the right to elect our
representatives in a constitutional republic and to define our government
through popular votes, with a further right to protect ourselves and our
system of government against enemies, foreign or domestic, who would try to
overthrow our elected authorities. That's what Washington and over 16,000
militiamen did in the Whiskey Rebellion.

As Tim McVeigh found out to his dismay, "the people" are not in favor of
violent rebellion to overthrow our government. In fact, we executed him for
acting upon his belief, which apparently was sincere, that millions of
people were of the same state of mind as he was, and would rebel if he only
led the way. Within that mindset one can believe that he has a right to
threaten others -- or that his surrogates do, the "we people" Larry talks
about, who want to "steer" politicians with the barrel of a gun. Which makes
Larry "glad."

I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, but exercising my First Amendment
right again g, I'll tell you how this all looks to me. You, Larry, and
Gunner are the Twisted Sisters. Gunner is indulging one of his many
fantasies, one of his Timothy McVeigh moments, promoting the idea that 100
million of his "friends" are going to rise up and start killing elected
government officials (and all liberals, while they're at it) in three years'
time, while he sits on his porch laughing and playing his banjo. Larry, who
wouldn't threaten anyone himself, is glad that there are people out there
who *are* carrying guns and making veiled threats to steer the government
his way -- which he thinks is the way "the people" think, ignoring the
lessons of the Oklahoma bombing and other cause celebs of the "militias"
himself. You're the Constitutional Casuist, applying your extensive reading
of history to produce a sophistic defense for people who make veiled
threats, the Consigliere of the fantasy mob.

And I think you're all perpetual adolescents with a sick view of history and
our Constitution.


I'm sorry that's so difficult for you to understand,
but if you don't get it by now, I'm suspect you never
will.

So with that, I guess it's about time for me to also
say...

plonk

That's probably a good idea, because I don't think even your casuistic
skills can reconcile your convoluted position.

--
Ed Huntress