Prove it? It's not possible to prove anything to a person who is behaving as you are. All this "lol" shit, and refusing to accept that there are limitations on our rights, since no limitations on our rights can mean infringing upon the rights- and the lives- of others. You're acting like a drunken idiot and I have had just about enough of your ignorant, smirking shit.

Where are you, FenderBender? Cat got your tongue?

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

I’m also being right, and if we are willing to throw away Any of our Rights, because someone doesn’t like them, then we’ll all be in the same boat as VA.

Before I figured you were just confused, but now I see that you're about as bright as a black hole, and twice as dense. Good lord.

Lol... Prove it.

The proof is right here in this thread.

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. None whatsoever. And now you're being deliberately uncomprehending. And that's me being kind, cause you frankly really are clueless on this matter.

Well, then let me do that

According to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), speech constituting an incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment.

“Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

You’re wrong. It’s not sigforum that says so. The Supreme Court of the United States says so.

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
Well, I think this sums up this thread.
Thanks for the entertainment Longbow...

No one has proved me wrong yet.

I'd bet he doesn't accept the rulings of SCOTUS either.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevbo:
Well, then let me do that

According to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), speech constituting an incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendmenr.

“Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

You’re wrong. It’s not sigforum that says so. The Supreme Court of the United States says so.

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
Well, I think this sums up this thread.
Thanks for the entertainment Longbow...

No one has proved me wrong yet.

So, why was he acquitted, then ?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I had to blast my monitor with a fire extinguisher after that pic appeared on the screen

I understand fully!!!!!

Still waiting for an answer

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You think the First Amendment means that you can saying anything and everything you wish. Is that correct?

A pedestrian walks in front of a moving truck, they have the right to do it, but he has to accept the consequences that the impact will hurt.

ANSWER the question

Because the jury did not think his actions met the second part of the test. The jury did not think that his actions were likely to actually lead to ICE agents being murdered. If you would take the time to read Brandenburg you would see in order for the speech to be not protected by the first amendment it has to meet both prongs of the test.

Any other questions?

Also, it’s much more important that your next answer be to Para than to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by Kevbo:
Well, then let me do that

According to Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), speech constituting an incitement to imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendmenr.

“Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”

You’re wrong. It’s not sigforum that says so. The Supreme Court of the United States says so.

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
Well, I think this sums up this thread.
Thanks for the entertainment Longbow...

No one has proved me wrong yet.

So, why was he acquitted, then ?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Still waiting for an answer

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You think the First Amendment means that you can saying anything and everything you wish. Is that correct?

A pedestrian walks in front of a moving truck, they have the right to do it, but he has to accept the consequences that the impact will hurt.

ANSWER the question

Look, I know you’re the owner here, and with a few strokes of the keyboard, you can ban me.

I believe what I believe, that our Rights should not be infringed upon.
We have the right to Free Speech, whatever it may be.
We start infringement of any of those rights, and we are fucked.

We can say what we want, but are we willing to face the consequences of acting upon what we say, if someone else does not like what we say ?

quote:

Let’s start with the Second Amendment seeing as you all seem to want limit the First.

What a load of malarkey; you’re equating proffering threats to free speech? Not sure the founding fathers would agree with your assessment.

I see little difference between this and ordering up a hit on someone. Or the crazy wife offering money to a hitman to murder her husband. Soliciting murder for money has been illegal for a long time and will remain so. If it is done over the phone, in a dark alley or on social media is irrelevant. Even if the money factor is removed from the equation, it is still illegal to murder or ask somebody to murder on your behalf.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Let’s start with the Second Amendment seeing as you all seem to want limit the First.

What a load of malarkey; you’re equating proffering threats to free speech? Not sure the founding fathers would agree with your assessment.

Would the Founding Fathers agree to you limiting your Second Amendment Rights ?

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Let’s start with the Second Amendment seeing as you all seem to want limit the First.

What a load of malarkey; you’re equating proffering threats to free speech? Not sure the founding fathers would agree with your assessment.

Would the Founding Fathers agree to you limiting your Second Amendment Rights ?

The second has no bearing whatsoever here and you know it- or you should. It’s a ridiculous comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:
So, why was he acquitted, then ?

Hmmm, let me weigh in at this point and venture a guess. He got acquitted because....

1 - The court proceeding occurred in the liberal/progressive stronghold of Boston.
2 - The jury of his peers were likely retards and/or SJW's sporting IQ's so low they'd need a map to find their way home from court.
3 - The current judicial system doesn't give a damn what the law says or means.

That about covers it. this limp dick should have been hung up by his pseudo man parts for having done what he did. And your arguments to the contrary using the 1st amendment are beyond silly. I have a 2A right to keep and bear arms (not currently observed through a large part of the country), but I do not have the right to threaten someone with a gun (i.e. a crime).

LB,

H&K-Guy Axiom #34:

"When you have gotten to page four, and nobody agrees with you, someone is probably wrong. And that someone is most likely you."

Seriously, get back on your meds, dry out, go to your safe place in your mind, whatever. This stuff is not going to be tolerated for long. And I for one don't want to see a 14 year veteran of SIGforum utterly rejected by it's populace.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

Let’s start with the Second Amendment seeing as you all seem to want limit the First.

What a load of malarkey; you’re equating proffering threats to free speech? Not sure the founding fathers would agree with your assessment.

Would the Founding Fathers agree to you limiting your Second Amendment Rights ?

The second has no bearing whatsoever here and you know it- or you should. It’s a ridiculous comparison.

Yes it does, and you know it too !!
Because if you open the door on limiting one, then what’s Next ?? Religion, or Press, take your pick !!

You can’t have your cake, and not expect someone else to want cake too.

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:
Think about it for a minute lol.

He says something, and we don’t like it, so there for he should go to jail.

We own firearms, and Liberals don’t like it, and think we should go to jail for it.

So therefore, if we get what we want, this asshat in jail for saying something, it’s gives the Liberals what they want, and the chance to put us in jail.

Folks in VA are already talking civil war and insurrection.

So what’s the difference ?

The 2nd Amendment gives me a right to own guns.
With your logic, it also gives me the right to shoot people?

quote:

Originally posted by Longbow_06:
We have the right to Free Speech, whatever it may be.
We start infringement of any of those rights, and we are fucked.

We can say what we want, but are we willing to face the consequences of acting upon what we say, if someone else does not like what we say ?

Ridiculous. By your measure, there are no crimes of issuing terroristic threats, intent to murder or do harm, etc.

You can't make threats against the POTUS. This will get you a long prsion sentence. You can't call a man and tell him that you intend to molest his daughter. The list goes on and on.

But what you're saying is that there are no actual crimes simply because you have the ability to do these things, and this is a preposterous argument. This is the kind of logic I would expect from a 14 year old boy.

It's lost upon you that no limitations on the rights of an individual is contradictory in a social context, because what you're saying is that one can do/say whatever they wish, which would naturally mean t some point infringing upon the rights- and lives- of others.

`