This is why you don't allow the State to issue Firearms Licenses

[AZRedhawk44]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/01/18/arlington-man-loses-gun-license-due-to-blog-about-tucson-shooting/

Yes, he said "1 down, 534 to go."

I consider it no worse than many lawyer jokes, myself.

With no planning on his part to whack any of the remaining 534, and no more motive than the other 300 million Americans who also hate their government leaders and hold them in approximately the same disdain, I don't have a problem with what he said.

If he's a threat, charge him with assault, or intimidation of an elected official, or whatever.

Don't pull chicken-$#!+ stunts like this to harass him into 1st amendment submission.  You piss more people off with those actions.

Everything I need to know about life, I learned from Star Wars:

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers..."

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

This is why I do not want a national ccw, and hate state CCW permit systems. They will jerk that permit as fast as they can for what ever reason they choose. 

[Perd Hapley]

In his blog Corcoran writes, “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.”

Wow. Not sure it should be actionable, but still...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

1 down and 534 to go

It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.

I can certainly see why they'd want to check into the man.  

Taking the dood's permits and property is excessive, especially since they haven't concluded their investigation or gone through any due process yet.  Though that's exactly the sort of stoopid we've come to expect from Boston.

[AZRedhawk44]

Sounds like someone in Boston dusted off a 1770's "Writ of Assistance."

[AZRedhawk44]

In his blog Corcoran writes, “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.”

I've heard plenty of other people say the same thing.

Shooting voters along with politicians has the opposite effect on political outcome from what the shooter typically intends.  (Redhawk says: Frankly, shooting JUST politicians also historically has the opposite effect...)

I think all he's saying, is:  If you ARE gonna shoot a politician, then leave it at the politician.  Don't go killing bus drivers and bag ladies and schoolgirls.

I agree with that.

Though I think shooting politicians doesn't do any good.  Double-especially-so when the politician is just freshly elected and hasn't had a chance to even implement any legislation in the new session of Congress to earn enmity.

[dogmush]

Has anyone read the Post in question?

www.tjic.com seems to be down, and I can't quite squint enough to read the screen cap in the OP.

I'd be interested in what was actually said (typed), in it's entirety, in context, before I made any conclusions.

[AZRedhawk44]

I've found a pulled flowchart on his blog that supposedly says:

http://tjic.com/?p=19751 (seems his whole blog is deleted right now)

    * believe that assassinating politicians is sometimes valid
    * believe that it’s better to assassinate a small number of politicians rather than kill a large number of draftees
    * agree that it’s sometimes legitimate for citizens to rebel against democratic governments
    * agree that the ends do not justify the means, and are not willing to cause massive war for little purpose
    * agree that the Arizona shooting was a tragedy
    * agree that it is not legitimate to assassinate politicians in the US today
    * have said some tasteless things among friends in your life that had the potential to play very poorly in a different audience

Hard to argue too much with that.

Blogs are sometimes verbal diarrhea.  He made a public mouth-poop.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

He doesn't believe that the ends justify the means, but he's ok with murdering politicians in lieu of war?

He agrees that it's not legitimate to assassinate politicians in the US, but he says to aim for the politicians and their aides rather than the average citizens?

[MicroBalrog]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[seeker_two]

I can certainly see why they'd want to check into the man.  

Taking the dood's permits and property is excessive, especially since they haven't concluded their investigation or gone through any due process yet.  Though that's exactly the sort of stoopid we've come to expect from Boston.

Should the guy be noted, observed, and possibly investigated?....yes.  Should he have his liberties and property confiscated by the state without due process?....absolutely NOT.

It amazes me that, in the process of "preventing" violence against gov't officials, those same gov't officials pull stupid stuff like this that gives the fringe even more "ammo" for their extreme views....and starts chafing at the more-centered population....

Wanna bet all this just reaffirms this guy's viewpoint even more?..... 

[kgbsquirrel]

Looks like dupe threads, can we get this one merged with  http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=27879.0