More Violance from the "Progressive Left"
 

Well what did you think was gonna happen.

Snoop shoots Tump in a video
Broadway Stabs Trump in a play
Kathey Beheads Trump for photo shoot
Madonna says she wants to blow up the White House in a speech to thousands

Is it really that shocking that another lefty shoots up a baseball game full of Congressional folk

What did you expect. Arrest them all. Lock em up and prosecute Killary. Empty threats against the Evil left only encourages them.

Gotta love the conservatives argument "we need our guns to protect against tyrannical government". Wanna change that stance now that you see what it actually means? This wasn't a law abiding citizen that protected them, it was a cop.

And you don't think statements like this have any relevance?

https://images.dailykos.com/images/4...jpg?1497455932

Look, I like Rand Paul, but isn't this statement (probably) exactly what happened? Do you still think he feels the same?

Lock them up? Free speech there buddy. So now you guys are not only anti-capitalist but anti-constitution. You guys are on a roll.

That's what cops do. If Scalise wasn't there this morning, would've been much different situation.

I love how we ignore the fact that a Dem shot 3 or 4 people today! Worse than MSM

It's Obama's fault.

Crazy people do crazy things. Cant outlaw it, cant stop it. They are F'n crazy. To try to label crazy people as republicans/libritards/lefty's/right wing....is immature and pointless. Time for the adults in this country to grow up and stop creating fake news. The story is, a nutjob shot up a republican softball practice and got what he deserved. Anything else and your adding to the problem.

Typical Commie excuse. It is against the law look it up 18 USC 871. "The essence of the offence is knowing and willful making of a true threat. So,if it is proved within a reasonable doubt that the person made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat". It's is Evil that Anti-American Commie Liberals insist this is free speech, but do not allow right wing speakers to speak at college campuses.

I mean I'm sure you read that statute before you cited it, but here's the link for everybody else.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871

Not sure what a written threat deposited in the mail has to do with anything you are talking about?

Yes you are correct. Obama made excuses for terrorism all the time. If we just had more compassion. If we would just give them more resources. If we would all look into ourselves and ask if we are to blame in part for there actions because somebody else is different. Racism exist and those less fortunate are the victims.

I love watching you leftists trying to explain this isn't representative of the left while talking out the other side of your mouths saying it's representative of all guns & their owners. Derp.

Then explain hate speech laws, Mouth of Wisdom?

www.lectlaw.com/def2/t028.htm for everyone other then liberals

Ahh yes, quote me where I said it isn't representive of the left and that it represented all of you.

Please, I beg of you to show me hate speech laws. I'll be waiting.

for everyone other than liberals, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges you mean.

The statute you cited clearly is limited to written threats deposited in the U.S. Mail. Says so itself.

I would enjoy watching the hilarity that would ensue from a U.S. Attorney trying to cite the "Lectric Law Library" to prosecute, though.

It was somebody with good intentions to protect life using a gun. That is what is all about. Wakeisreal i guess your reasoning would be if it was not a cop and a private citizen that they would have joined in? I really don't see what it matters who shot him . Thank God somebody shot him and it was not in a gun free zone where citizens are a real easy target.

"speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law"

"Beauharnis v. Illinois, the Supreme Court developed a free speech jurisprudence that loosened most aspects of the free speech doctrine.[85] In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."[86]"

We could also discuss the over 350 "speech codes" enforced by our universities & other Gov agencies, if you'd like.

Even after a few years of hooky, Wakeworld never ceases to entertain... :)

You realize there have been more rulings since Beauharnis that have essentially led to that being null right? And that ruling was basically an extension of libel laws that is now looked at to be bad ruling/law.

Bring up the speech codes, I would love to!

Yes thank god it wasn't in a gun free zone. Those cops would have had to wait till the guy got out of the gun free zone to shoot him.

I want guns to be less accessible so nut jobs like this guy can't get them. I've already read people pro-gun people saying they would have just used a truck of knives, a truck would have been difficult to do this with and a knife wouldn't have been very effective.

There are plenty of safe, lawful gun owners. You guys should have your guns, but by letting any dumbass get them you guys are letting it tarnish your image.

It is not only the mail, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes such a threat. Read it again.

ha! Hey you are right. My bad.

It didn't make the incite violence part null. What part of the speech codes would you like to discuss? There are over 350 of them so pick one.

I personally do not like guns, but i like that i do have the right to carry or own one. We have laws that are not enforced enough. Lets try those laws first.

I know. Free-speech vs. a law. People are taking it to far and somebody is going to act upon it. This is wrong and evil no matter who was voted in by the people.

Again, show me one that has held up in court. There aren't any, so it shouldn't take too long to look them
Up. Even Berkeley allows hate speech. Fighting words don't fall under free speech, so inciting violence is null.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oZn2fO2Rqy0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Wow this Communist anarchist needs to be put away for good. Lost her job as teacher and the commie bitch got it back. Thank You Calif. Teachers Federation for putting her back into the classroom and filling young empty heads with hate and terror.

Berkeley does in fact have speech codes. And it's been rather documented, if they don't like it, it's hate speech & thus falls under the codes. I did find this gem though, didn't get to read it in full but it seems to support my argument so here's a snipet.

In Virginia v. Black, a seminal 2003 Supreme Court decision on cross-burning, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor described “true threats” as statements in which “the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

In other words, the more specific and immediate the threat, the more likely it’ll be regarded as illegal.

Lemme get this straight, the school that was going to allow Milo to speak ha speech codes. Yeah... And where are these speech codes that are held up to the rigor of the law? Still waiting.

Again, cross burning vs free speech, you're realllyyyyy reaching now.

If I'm not mistaken, cross burning is a federal crime.

So what? There are kooks in both parties. Quit acting like this is a left or right issue.

Crazy eh? Legal experts complaining on a wakeboard forum that the govt won't arrest the people they want arrested. It's like the whole govt is against them. And why did they pick a wakeboard forum?

Pretty much sums up gun violence in America, But they always blame the Deer hunting , sport shooting , self protecting republicans and their grip on the 2nd Amendment.

Attachment 43162

Do you realize that is a totally made up statistic? If US society really wants to reduce gun violence then you need to have a grown up discussion about it. Playing them and us solves nothing.

Really???? Because I can probably get the stats of the 5 major cities in America with the most amount of gun violence and they would all mirror these stats right here. Wonder how many "LEGALLY PURCHASED GUNS were used by LEGAL GUN OWNERS in these instances. More than 90% Democrat I can sure you. The conversation goes like this. Guns are not the issue demographics are, plain and simple. Mind you Chicago is an anti gun city and has the most restrictive gun policies in the nation. As do 3 of the top 5 deadliest cities. What else do this violent places have in common ???? Democratically controlled governments for ages. See how well that works.

Wait. It's those scary black rifles isn't it? They're so deadly......... hmm yet they account for less than 2% of all gun crimes in the nation. Some would argue less than 1% if you account for shootings not just homicides. Yet again hysteria pushed by the left with no stats whatsoever to support their claims.

Attachment 43163

Attachment 43164

Attachment 43165

Attachment 43166

Who knew solving gun violence would be so easy, you just need to ask one question when selling a fire arm, are you black and/or Democrat. No gun for you boy-o! Easy, problem solved.

Oh I'd say you're trying to split hairs here. And you just said it ALMOST allowed Milo. Almost allowed Coulter. And I did find two cases of people being prosecuted & found guilt of hate speech inciting violence via the supreme court, I will dig them up when my boss disappears. And I forgot about all the convictions of cyber bullying. There's two girls on trial now facing prison if found guilty of their texts that lead to the receiver committing suicide.

You really bring up a very important point. How does the public know when somebody reaches the trigger point. In order to prevent violence Safe Spaces might be a good idea.

You are so full of it. One, every gang banger in this country is not a Democrat. That is you just spewing BS. Convicted felons can't vote. Two, Chicago doesn't "have the most restrictive gun policies in the nation". The handgun ban was overturned in 2010. Concealed carry ban was tossed. 2013 ended Chicago's gun registry. Chicago's ban on gun shops was overturned in 2014. Third, your stat about 3 of the 5 deadliest cities having the most restrictive gun laws is made up. St. Louis, Memphis, and Birmingham all make that list and have very lax gun laws. Besides, even if your made up talking point was true and Chicago had the toughest gun laws, it's pretty easy to get a gun in the surrounding areas.

I don't want people to confuse my post as a stance on gun control. Only the point that Swatguy is pushing crap and claiming it to be fact.

Most states have some sort of law against cyber bullying. That is not protected by free-speech laws.

Again, Berkeley did allow them, private citizens blocked it. C'mon now, surely you understand the difference?

Again, harassment/stalking is not free speech just as burning crosses isn't lol.

Point me to 3 major cities with a more restrictive gun policies than Chicago since you know so much !!!!!!! You're completely wrong again.

St. Louis and Memphis are close to the top 5 but not there, they just saw the biggest increases to their homicide "rates ". I can't imagine what may have happened in St Louis that would have made criminals think they can run around shooting people with no fear of being prosecuted. Can you? You want to focus on actual "shootings" when discussing gun issues. Birmingham isn't even close to the top 5 . Detroit , Baltimore , New Orleans . Focusing on one aspect ( the murder rate alone is the wrong approach) Actual shooting rates and shooting incidents along with armed robbers , aggravated criminal sexual assaults, aggravated assaults, home invasions ( all crimes with the use of a weapon) are where you want to focus,,,,,,,,,but wait I am sure all those gamgbangers are flocking to the burbs to go buy their guns . You're an idiot

And to say every gangbanger isn't a demcocrat????? Can you point to where that was ever stated ? Again making inferences that were never stated , But I can assure the the gamgbangers in the stats I posted all vote democrat as a group. Election Day is a true spectacle in Chicago.

Convicted felons not be allowed voting rights............ WRONG AGAIN. For Christ sake we have convicted felons holding political office. Here is the law that you again know nothing about. Who is the one posting lies ????!???????

Illinois has passed a specific law which spells out what effect a felony conviction can have on your right to vote in Illinois. The law is set out in 10 ILCS 5/3-5. In Illinois, a convicted felon has just as much of a right to vote as any other citizen in the state. As long as you are not incarcerated, meaning serving a prison sentence, you can register and cast a vote in Illinois.


Thanks for playing as usual.

Berkeley cancelled Coulter. lol. Burning crosses is most deff free speech unless you do it on someones property with the intent to cause damage or inflict emotional duress, surely you understand the difference. Burning the quran is legal, yet the gov, police, whacky leftys block it. You're sole argument here is if enough people get violent to block what you don't like it's a good thing. My money says you'll be saying the exact opposite if some right whack job starts taking shots at leftists & blame Trump.

Yes, my argument is that free speech is protected by the government, not a bunch of dumbass antifa guys blocking it.

And dude, Ann pulled out of that speech, what are you talking about? The group who booked her tried to get the school to pay for it. That is a massive difference.

Okay we agree on something with the dip****s causing chaos. The group from what I read was paying for Coulter from the young republican group not the school & was blocked by the school for fears of safety. If everyone is going to be able to block what they don't like than in a round about way it is becoming illegal as using "safety" as an argument makes it okay to drown out dissent.

The school changed the dates. Anne was not available. The school changed the location on campus. Anne was right to pull out. There was a good chance that someone from the left would have tried to hurt or kill her. The mayor of Berkeley is friends with Antifa leaders and supports them. The college police like the city will do nothing to protect free speech. They encourage hate speech and violence.

Again, I followed this closely because I was hoping Berkeley would hold up free speech. The venue was deemed unsafe(and rightly so), the Young American's Foundation didn't wanna foot the bill for the security/new venue change, and Coulter jumped on the opportunity to scream free speech on this. Of course she vowed to show up anyways and didn't because of those very same security concerns she called "fake". Berkeley has held up their end of the deal, student's tuition shouldn't be spent on protecting speakers that 98% of the campus doesn't want to hear from. If the cons want to hear her, pay the bill. Simple as that.

Actually I think free speech is protected "from" the govt. It's not protected explicitly from the public. There are other laws that contribute to protecting you from the public that allow you to speak freely. But the govt can't reasonably protect you if you make too many enemies.

Sorry that was a typo you are 100% correct.

Again, you can't have it both ways though. If the school is going to fund other incendiary speakers simple because they agree with them then you can't shut out what you disagree with it. Southpark says it best: It's either all okay all none of it's okay.

You don't understand how this works. A club asks a speaker to speak, the club pays for it. The republicans wanted to pay the bare minimum and have the school cover security. For republicans that seems like a waste of tax dollars no?

The other speakers don't require security so it isn't an equivalent. I truly can't comprehend how you don't understand this. Do you think it's fair for me to have presidential security so I can speak at my school? No. Because I don't need it. But by that logic Trump shouldn't get it either, can't have it both ways right?

I think that's apples to oranges. You are not receiving death threats & have a populace eager to kill you. If you were a speaker your concern is the loons out there, a president has agencies world wide that would love to take a shot & blame protesters. But by your logic if righty would just step up their violence & protest game no one should speak out of fear for security reasons. I get it just fine, I am more amazed that you are almost justifying it when the problem isn't the speaker, it's the loons they let cause the madness. Being it is taxable dollars both sides should have equals, even though it is a waste of tax money. Lastly, why are they so scared to have their dogma challenged? You'd think they would want all the "hate speech" on full display to back up their arguments against it. Should we stop all sports championship games since several lead to celebration riots requiring tax dollar police forces to stop them? To recap, tax dollars to allow free speech bad, tax dollars to allow its silencing good.

The govt can't reasonably protect you if you make too many enemies. Why should schools be forced to choose to use their funds to protect people who's speech is inciting the public? The police charge for security. The police aren't free until after the fact when crimes have already been committed and security has been breached.

Your complaint is basically that you want schools to fund protection for speech that you like. Highly doubtful that you would care if it was speech you didn't like. I certainly have no interest in forcing schools to use their funds for anything but education. There is not lack of outlets for speakers to push their points of view. So there really is little reason to force schools to allow anyone to speak if they determine that the logistics are too costly.

This is the most confusing flawed logic I have seen in a while. It is apples to oranges. That's my point that it's apples to oranges. If a club wants a speaker they should pay the fee. That includes security for their speaker. My tuition shouldn't go to protecting a nutjob that only a fraction of the students want to hear. You can't have both. They aren't the same. Comparing a sports championship is a false equivalency to a private speaker at a public campus. I've enjoyed some of your takes here as you seem level headed, but you're so far off on this I can't explain it anymore.

Fair enough. At least we agree the left is a bunch of raging loons engaged in an orgy of hate & violence :D

Ahh that's fine considering the majority of the right are so uneducated that they can't see what's right in front of them! Both sides suck.

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F136 245116406922%2Fphotos%2Fa.539469282751168.10737418 27.136245116406922%2F540631042634992%2F%3Ftype%3D3 &width=500" width="500" height="503" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>Antifa and the commie lefts best friend. Police must worry about getting fired, and are not to eager to step in. Berkeley is a communist cesspool. NLG observers observe and wear camera just in case the police try to step in.<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com

What specfically is it about communism that you detest?

Neither can see the past the tip of their own noses.

That they do & neither can see past the tip of their own noses.

Rep Scalise has worked tirelessly to attack and prevent the civil rights of the black lesbian capitol police officer that saved his life today. Wonder if he'll have a change of heart after this. Doubt it.

On another note, welcome back "Barry!"

Uhhh, NYC, LA, SF.

Anything else?

Uhhh, NYC, LA, and SF. Anything else?

to sum up

test

test

I like how you can only see the replies if you hit "go advanced" and scroll down.

Dennis gotta give credit, you broke this thread!

Sick
<iframe width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pSPvnFDDQHk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>