arma virumque cano (et alia)
Korey, with his very fine hat and AK has made himself quite popular among pro-gun advocates also,"Kory Watkins, the leader of Open Carry Tarrant County, is the Fred Phelps of the open carry movement in the United States, “leading” with hate, and turning everything he touches to cinder and ash.""Many pro-gun people agree with the concept of constitutional carry. They have the good sense to know that the best way to transition to constitutional carry is to make calm, rational, intelligent, and data-driven arguments that inevitably convince people that constitutional carry is the most rational position for a free people to adopt.""At this moment, I think that there is an argument to be made that Kory Watkins is the single most effective advocate for gun control in the United States.I hope he’s smart enough to ask Mike Bloomberg for a check."http://bearingarms.com/westboro-kory-watkins-torches-open-carry-movement-punishable-death-threat/
So he can carry on his death threats?
The video was political speech. Keep in mind that if it were to qualify as a real threat, then he could be charged and prosecuted.
Death threats are not free speech, political, or otherwise. Threatening to kill, is a crime.
If it's a crime, then pray tell why isn't Mr. Watkins in jail?
If it's a crime, then pray tell why isn't Mr. Watkins in jail?Maybe because Watkins didn't type his threat in bold font. ;-)
Well, I don't know if the question of whether or not it was a crime is determined by whether or not charges are brought. This is Texas, after all. The decision makers might be a bit more sympathetic to this lunatic than they would be in, say, MA, for example.
Good Lord, Mark! Are you studying half as hard in school as you study this on-line gun nonsense?Now hit the books and quit yer blogging.Just kidding.
I would suggest that since he hasn't been charged, then it doesn't rise to the level of a criminal threat, and is therefore political speech."See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe 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."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Just because he wasn't charged doesn't mean it's not a crime. As we see in the gun issue all sorts of gun crimes are never charged. But you go ahead and threaten someone's life and see if you get charged, because of course, whether, or not you are charged threatening someones life is an acceptable way to communicate in society, right?
Maybe you would care to take a stab at explaining how his words rose to the level of criminal speech and fell outside the protection of the 1st Amendment, Sammy?
So I can threaten to kill you and you can't make a complaint to the police?
"So I can threaten to kill you and you can't make a complaint to the police?" Anyone can call the police if they feel they're being threatened. Then the police, or the prosecutor has to determine if it rises to the level of a criminal act. I'm sure this got looked at in that light since Watkins isn't very popular with law enforcement. He goes out regularly and makes videos of police making arrests. I doubt anyone cut him any slack just because he is pro-gun.
"whether, or not you are charged threatening someones life is an acceptable way to communicate in society, right?"So if there are no criminal charges, it's OK to go around threatening people's lives? That's they way to communicate in society? Love the way you guys stick up for the assholes of society.
"Love the way you guys stick up for the assholes of society. " Actually its the ACLU that specializes in free speech issues,"The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/freedom-expression#2
Nice dodge SS, glad to see you support those who go around threatening people's lives.
After you've been here a while Sammy, you'll come to know that threatening isn't my style. However, I'm also heavily into individual rights, even for those I don't agree with. Mr. Watkins' antics have had a very negative effect on gun legislation in the short term, and I hope someone can tighten his shot group. However, until his speech wanders over the line into unprotected, or criminal speech, he is free to say what he wishes. If I had a chance to talk to him, I'd be tempted to quote my mother when I did something stupid. She's say, "shake up your brains"
I guess your mother didn't teach you to be civilized human being who doesn't go around threatening people's lives, or supporting those who do. That's easy to see since you continue to be an insulting, lying asshole to Sandra, me, and others on this blog who disagree with your dishonest garbage.
As I said earlier, I don't support Mr. Watkins. However, his statements don't seem to rise to the level of criminal conduct. And I don't think I've ever threatened anyone here.
Thanks fror another lie SS> Reread what I said, did I say you threatened anyone? I await your next lie.
"I guess your mother didn't teach you to be civilized human being who doesn't go around threatening people's lives, or supporting those who do." I just responded to both sides of your or statement.
True, you always talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Here is either backtracking or a clarification of the video from Mr. Watkins himself,"This morning I removed a video from my Facebook because I thought there were those that would intentionally misinterpret my words. In this video I referred to treason, and the fact that the penalty for treason was death. My intent was to show that our founders took treason very seriously. Our elected officials have taken an oath to defend the constitution. Dereliction of that oath is an equally serious matter. I was certainly not threatening anyone. I love the constitution dearly, and the constitution is very clear on the process for convicting someone for treason, I was obviously not calling for such a process, nor was I threatening anyone. I simply wished to point out the seriousness of the constitution. Let me make it clear and unequivocal: I was not talking about hurting legislators, or anyone else. I am an advocate of peaceful non-cooperation. When I speak of "stepping it up a notch" mean within the boundaries of "peaceful non-cooperation". Instead of just a foot in the door. perhaps we need "sit ins" chanting "hell no we won't go". We at Open Carry Tarrant County denounce in the strongest terms harming or threatening to harm persons or property as a strategy to bring about open carry in Texas. Anyone who has done so, has not done so on behalf of our organization. We at Open Carry Tarrant County proudly follow in the tradition of Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in in using peaceful noncooperation as a means to demand our rights."https://www.facebook.com/kory.watkins.3/posts/958726560819197
I've been enjoying all the bleating angst about Watkins noting that the Constitution provides for the death penalty for treason. Where were these folks when CSGV made the same observation?The Constitution also defines only one crime, the crime of Treason, which is punishable by death.Oh, and whom do they accuse of "treason"? Why, me, of course.
So Sammy, do you want to see Josh Horwitz arrested and charged with a crime? This meets your requirements of a threat even more so than what Kory Watkins said, because it is directed at specific named targets (Kurt and others).
TS, it's your kind of thinking that creates a more violent society. keep defending the assholes of society.
I asked if you think Josh Horwitz made a threat against Kurt. I really don't see how your response has anything to do with the question I asked you. So was it a threat, or not?
TS, did you go to Kurt's links? Did you see what Kurt said? I certainly didn't. What those links show is a far cry from what Kory said.
They both called out acts that they called "treason" and they both pointed out how treason is punishable by death. The only difference is that Horwitz called out these "treasoners" by name, which is usually needed to constitute a threat. It has to have direction, and not just "the government".For the record, I don't think either is a legitimate threat, but if you are going to call what Mr. Watkins said a threat, then you certainly have to say the same about Horwitz- unless you are just extremely biased.
You're being stubbornly unreasonable. The Watkins thing came much closer to being a real threat. Yes or no?
The Watkins thing came much closer to being a real threat.Speaking only for myself, and not for TS, I'll acknowledge that I didn't feel threatened by CSGV's (and Laci's, for that matter) efforts to sic the government on me--I knew that this country has still not fallen nearly far enough for their attempt to get me arrested (for a capital crime) to be anything but great hilarity.The fact remains that CSGV has repeatedly accused me of "treason" (and you yourself, quoting Horwitz's "treason" charge, called me a "traitor" (and a "dunce")), and they later emphasized that the penalty for treason is death.It's not a threat, but it's a pretty good window into what they would like to happen.
No. What reasons do you have to say yes? Whom was he threatening?
Watkins directly threatened those who block open carry. Horwitz made two separate statements which only when combined, out of context, make up the supposed threat against Kurt, who, by the way didn't feel threatened.
Horwitz made two separate statements which only when combined, out of context, make up the supposed threat against Kurt . . . First, why is there a problem with combining his two statements? He made both of them, after all. Second, in what "context" does A) accusing me of treason (a charge with which you seem to agree), and B) stating that treason is punishable by death; not constitute advocacy of my being treated with the lethal injection flavor of Obamacare?
"Those people"? Who are those people? And did he directly threaten them, or did he say that what "they" are doing is a crime of which they could be arrested for, put on trial, and if convicted sentenced to death by the government? That's the main reason why neither of these is a threat. Pointing out that something is a crime doesn't mean the person who does so intends to act as judge, jury, and executioner. You said Kurt never felt threatened. Ok, so who is the person who says they felt threatened by Mr. Watkins?
You guys are showing your true colors, not that I had any doubt, in supporting and defending this idiot Watkins.
You guys are showing your true colors, not that I had any doubt, in supporting and defending this idiot Watkins.Well, in my case, my "support and defense" of Watkins was limited to the remarkable similarity between the gist of his controversial statement and Horwitz's. If that's the extentt of such "support and defense," Watkins would appear to be pretty much on his own.
Support him- no. Defend him- yes. You're making false accusations that I am calling you out on. The video does not constitute a "direct threat"- that is my point. He may be the biggest jerk in the world, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to point out your inconsistencies and bias when on display.