Congresswoman Gabby Giffords Shot in Head

[The Lone Alliance]

soooooo i think i figured him out, he's a libertarian anarchist. i.e. nothing that is not specifically given as a right or power to the government, is unconstitutional.(unaltered constitution with 10 original amendments) therefore no schools, no police, no money other than gold, no judges other than supreme and appellate courts, and so on. the thing about grammar seems a little odd other than he's possibly asserting that the original intent of the constitution is being subverted by changing the way it is read, (aka not strictly adhering to its original intent) but thats the best i can figure. regardless this is an obviously disturbed individual

A privatize everything guy basically.

[Kalibarr]

Why do his politics and religion even matter? He shot up a bunch of people and killed several, does it really matter if he's a communist or a tea partier?

[Marsini]

Why do his politics and religion even matter? He shot up a bunch of people and killed several, does it really matter if he's a communist or a tea partier?

It permits the self-righteous to agrandize themselves and mock the opposition.

[The Lone Alliance]

Suspect was identified as a Liberal left-wing radical BAHAHAHA Take that Tea party conspiracy theorists.

In all seriousness laus Deo that she survived, thank the almighty for our vast knowledge of modern medicine.

Actually he sounds like a Ron Paul type.

Which if you remember were the guys who actually were the first to create the Tea Party.

But once again a guy makes Libertarians and Anarchists look crazier than they already appear.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Why do his politics and religion even matter? He shot up a bunch of people and killed several, does it really matter if he's a communist or a tea partier?

It permits the self-righteoustasteless assholes to agrandize themselves and mock the opposition.

Fixed.

[Ta suil]

soooooo i think i figured him out, he's a libertarian anarchist. i.e. nothing that is not specifically given as a right or power to the government, is unconstitutional.(unaltered constitution with 10 original amendments) therefore no schools, no police, no money other than gold, no judges other than supreme and appellate courts, and so on. the thing about grammar seems a little odd other than he's possibly asserting that the original intent of the constitution is being subverted by changing the way it is read, (aka not strictly adhering to its original intent) but thats the best i can figure. regardless this is an obviously disturbed individual

A privatize everything guy basically.

yah basically, a gold and black flag waiver if you follow me

[Galloism]

Why do his politics and religion even matter? He shot up a bunch of people and killed several, does it really matter if he's a communist or a tea partier?

It permits the self-righteous to agrandize themselves and mock the opposition.

Because, then side A can say "He's one of yours! You people hate democracy and are violent terrorists!", while side B can say "He's a lone man and doesn't represent the <political persuasion> at large."

Side A and B could be liberal or conservative - doesn't matter. The responses will stay the same.

[Terraius]

And this guy was making videos with handguns over textbooks talking about the ebil government. I mean seriously, why are these people allowed to remain in society?!

so... umm.. 1st amendment only applies to certain people, and not others? what parts of freedom of speech and press do you not understand? (and no, im not defending him, im questioning the premise of you ideas of freedom).

Idk, when hes talking about inciting violence against individuals or collectives whether it be the government or a group of people? Or does that fall under liberty as well?

[Zeth Rekia]

Why do his politics and religion even matter? He shot up a bunch of people and killed several, does it really matter if he's a communist or a tea partier?

It permits the self-righteous to agrandize themselves and mock the opposition.

Bingo Mr.Poster.

[Faith Hope Charity]

so... umm.. 1st amendment only applies to certain people, and not others? what parts of freedom of speech and press do you not understand? (and no, im not defending him, im questioning the premise of you ideas of freedom).

Idk, when hes talking about inciting violence against individuals or collectives whether it be the government or a group of people? Or does that fall under liberty as well?

people can say anything they want.. thats freedom of speech, they are dangerous when they act on it. Are you serious about going on the slippery slope of allowing the government to micromanage what we can and cant say? do you really trust it that much? And how would such laws be enforcable, and what kind of penalty would someone be given simply for saying something the govt doesnt like? how silly do you want to make this?

[Terraius]

Actually you cant, you must have missed Schenck v. United States

[Terraius]

Which Brandenburg v. Ohio further upheld, which stated '..inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action..'

[Terraius]

Although the question is, did he incite a clear and imminent danger? Some would say no, however his repeated actions leading up to this I would say yes as this was constant and consistent for a few years.

[Galloism]

Which Brandenburg v. Ohio further upheld, which stated '..inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action..'

Which narrowed the circumstances in which a restriction can be placed on the freedom of speech.

Imminent lawless action is quite... ahem, clear. Putting a gun on a history book and taking a picture of it is not, in of itself, indicative of "imminent lawless action".

[Faith Hope Charity]

Although the question is, did he incite a clear and imminent danger? Some would say no, however his repeated actions leading up to this I would say yes as this was constant and consistent for a few years.

i havent seen anything near clear and present danger from everything i have seen, hes just a nut.. i just saw political rant, and not anything showing he was going to be aggressive.

[Unidox]

Suspect was identified as a Liberal left-wing radical BAHAHAHA Take that Tea party conspiracy theorists.

Did you watch his videos? His views are not "left-wing".

I will concede there is a point in extremism where crazy becomes a little ambiguous, with the whole federal reserve conspiracy leading up to "Jews control the world", but the point is that the killing was politically motivated at least in part, and the atmosphere of hatred has come mainly from the right.

Wow, I actually agree.

[Galloism]

Although the question is, did he incite a clear and imminent danger? Some would say no, however his repeated actions leading up to this I would say yes as this was constant and consistent for a few years.

i havent seen anything near clear and present danger from everything i have seen, hes just a nut.. i just saw political rant, and not anything showing he was going to be aggressive.

Actually, in Hess v. Indiana, the court further clarified "imminent lawless action", by overturning a conviction of speech that "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time," that did not meet the imminence test.

[Terraius]

Which Brandenburg v. Ohio further upheld, which stated '..inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action..'

Which narrowed the circumstances in which a restriction can be placed on the freedom of speech.

Imminent lawless action is quite... ahem, clear. Putting a gun on a history book and taking a picture of it is not, in of itself, indicative of "imminent lawless action".

Obviously I was looking at the bigger picture and the various videos, statements, and other works that came from him which clearly showed someone who was violent and had violent thoughts and able to carry out such violence, as opposed to some guy who was just pissed off and blogged about DA EBIL GOVERNMENTS.

If an Arab American took a picture with a bomb on a textbook the FBI would have an entire fucking divison swarming his residence within the day, but when a seemingly harmless white boy does stuff like this for YEARS, everyone turns a cheek.

Until he blows someones brains.

Ahh, sweet smell of liberty.

[Galloism]

Which narrowed the circumstances in which a restriction can be placed on the freedom of speech.

Imminent lawless action is quite... ahem, clear. Putting a gun on a history book and taking a picture of it is not, in of itself, indicative of "imminent lawless action".

Obviously I was looking at the bigger picture and the various videos, statements, and other works that came from him which clearly showed someone who was violent and had violent thoughts and able to carry out such violence, as opposed to some guy who was just pissed off and blogged about DA EBIL GOVERNMENTS.

If an Arab American took a picture with a bomb on a textbook the FBI would have an entire fucking divison swarming his residence within the day, but when a seemingly harmless white boy does stuff like this for YEARS, everyone turns a cheek.

Until he blows someones brains.

Ahh, sweet smell of liberty.

Well, making bombs is usually illegal. So, that would be proof of a crime that didn't involve speech.

However...

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4369563#p4369563

[Occupied Deutschland]

Which narrowed the circumstances in which a restriction can be placed on the freedom of speech.

Imminent lawless action is quite... ahem, clear. Putting a gun on a history book and taking a picture of it is not, in of itself, indicative of "imminent lawless action".

Obviously I was looking at the bigger picture and the various videos, statements, and other works that came from him which clearly showed someone who was violent and had violent thoughts and able to carry out such violence, as opposed to some guy who was just pissed off and blogged about DA EBIL GOVERNMENTS.

If an Arab American took a picture with a bomb on a textbook the FBI would have an entire fucking divison swarming his residence within the day, but when a seemingly harmless white boy does stuff like this for YEARS, everyone turns a cheek.

Until he blows someones brains.

Ahh, sweet smell of liberty.

1. Guns are legal bombs are not.
2. hindsight is 20/20. Now you can easily say that his actions were imminent dangers, but at the time? Dude took a picture of a gun on a textbook, how is that (Or any of his other crazy rambling videos) somehow an indication of imminent threat to do something illegal? Point me to the place where he said anything to the tune of "do x (illegal thing)...." or "I am going to do x (illegal thing)

[Panzerjaeger]

Further Proof we should lock up Anarchists and Libertarians.

[Faith Hope Charity]

Further Proof we should lock up Anarchists and Libertarians.

HAH! so now thinking the wrong thing is punishable by prison.. you better have alot of prisons.. and you better have a willing populace to tax to pay for these thought violators to live.

[Terraius]

Further Proof we should lock up Anarchists and Libertarians.

HAH! so now thinking the wrong thing is punishable by prison.. you better have alot of prisons.. and you better have a willing populace to tax to pay for these thought violators to live.

Hey, he speaks forhimself. Id rather shoot em then waste taxdollars on them. Derp.

[Galloism]

Further Proof we should lock up Anarchists and Libertarians.

HAH! so now thinking the wrong thing is punishable by prison.. you better have alot of prisons.. and you better have a willing populace to tax to pay for these thought violators to live.

Could be worse.

We'll get three square meals a day, and tv.

[Faith Hope Charity]

HAH! so now thinking the wrong thing is punishable by prison.. you better have alot of prisons.. and you better have a willing populace to tax to pay for these thought violators to live.

Hey, he speaks forhimself. Id rather shoot em then waste taxdollars on them. Derp.

so now.. thinking the wrong thing is punishable by death? wow... someone remind me to not let you be dictator.