[s]YouTube stuff[/s] cancelled

[Fife]

Freedom of Thought is in big trouble in the West. Which means we are pretty much the last stand against profound stupidity and a very, very dark age incoming.

[StCapps]

Funny you should mention that. What exactly do you suppose our oath demands if the democrats and neocons manage to overthrow the democratically-elected government of the United States in a sham impeachment and Senate trial?

The Constitution requires proof of "high crimes and misdeamenors" and yet, after several years of legal fishing expeditions, they cannot even name a single statute Trump violated.

One side is actively trying to overthrow the Constitution here, and they are not Trump supporters..

We were talking about a veteran saying that he would shoot protesters if he had a gun.

It's a figure of speech. He's not actually going to shoot anyone, he's just mad they are such big faggots protesting on veterans day trying to piss off people there for non-faggoty reasons. If he wanted a gun, it wouldn't be hard for him to get one and come back and shoot them, but he didn't do that, because he clearly did not mean it the way you think he did.

Seriously monte, try actually thinking before jumping to ridiculous conclusions, for once in your life.

[Speaker to Animals]

It was still a crime, though. You really cannot say shit like that.

[StCapps]

It was still a crime, though. You really cannot say shit like that.

There are allowances for obvious hyperbole. He is not inciting violence, he is not actually threatening anyone, that's free speech.

[Speaker to Animals]

It was still a crime, though. You really cannot say shit like that.

There are allowances for obvious hyperbole. He is not inciting violence, he is not actually threatening anyone, that's free speech.

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

[StCapps]

It was still a crime, though. You really cannot say shit like that.

There are allowances for obvious hyperbole. He is not inciting violence, he is not actually threatening anyone, that's free speech.

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

Not generally a good idea, sure. But he wasn't threatening anyone, he was just using a figure of speech because he was pissed at the douche bag protestors is all. That is very obvious to anyone who isn't Montegriffo anyway.

[Montegriffo]

Are you arguing that the first amendment is unconstitutional?

Are you suggesting that people exercising their right to protest are domestic enemies of the constitution?
Surely not.

What are you arguing then?
Does the protester who claimed to be a veteran himself not have the right to protest?
Which part of the first amendment do you think is unconstitutional?

[StCapps]

No one is arguing the protestors have no right to protest.

Stop being stupid.

[Fife]

It was still a crime, though. You really cannot say shit like that.

There are allowances for obvious hyperbole. He is not inciting violence, he is not actually threatening anyone, that's free speech.

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

1. First, there has to be a specific federal or N.Y. criminal statute that would support prosecution. Federal -- is the old guy inciting anyone else to do something violent, or is he just talking about what he would do, given the opportunity. "If I had a gun, I'd wipe em all out," or "Give me a gun and I'll take care of em all." I don't see that he is trying to get anyone else to fuck the SJWs up, he's just saying what he would do if he had a chance. Maybe some of the later "making terroristic threats" statutes could fit, it would take a little research.

2. Second, is the First A. an absolute defense in this case? Check the Brandenburg test. "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." I doubt a jury would find this old guy was likely to produce an actual shooting by what he said, imminently or otherwise.

This old guy should have definitely chosen some other language to express what he was thinking, maybe something like "if I was still young enough, I'd take any and every one of you faggot motherfuckers on anywhere, anytime." But he's a 90+ year old veteran of the Pacific Theater, I'm willing to give him a little slack when he's confronted by worthless shitheads with nothing better to do than taunt him.

For midwit commie fucks to advocate for this old guy to be prosecuted, when he was clearly provoked by the limp-dicked pansies on the sidewalk of his fucking parade, is de rigueur for the mob-rule communist mentality I'm afraid.

[Montegriffo]

There are allowances for obvious hyperbole. He is not inciting violence, he is not actually threatening anyone, that's free speech.

Depends if the threat is actionable, I'd imagine. You'd have to ask Fife, but it is generally not generally a good idea to express those kinds of threats.

Not generally a good idea, sure. But he wasn't threatening anyone, he was just using a figure of speech because he was pissed at the douche bag protestors is all. That is very obvious to anyone who isn't Montegriffo anyway.

At least one of those protesters was a veteran. This dickhead said he would have shot him if he'd had a gun. Whether he meant it or not is not the point, the point is that he doesn't think anyone has the right to protest against the President. That's the anti-constitutional thing here not a legal demonstration against the sitting President.