Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
KY4Z wrote:


Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end".

There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones
rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution.

Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating his
rights'.

not at all

but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is
violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act


No its not

I even defend the rights of you and Stevie even Dan when he is right,
as vile as you are


Anyone notice how he keeps ranting about alleged threats of violence? My
opinion of him being a child needs modified.

well you have been making threats for days

He is a MAMA's BOY. A wimp, A loser, a drop out of life BEFORE he even
played the game.

Maybe we should leave him alone. He might slap himself with a fly swatter
or something.

Dan/W4NTI

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
KY4Z wrote:


Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end".

There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones
rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution.

Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating his
rights'.

not at all

but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is
violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate
whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating
violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country
would be locked up.

Jeff (nospam) wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
KY4Z wrote:


Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep end".

There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates ANYones
rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution.

Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating his
rights'.

not at all

but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is
violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate
whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating
violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country
would be locked up.

not at all

the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced
doesn't change the law

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff (nospam) wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
KY4Z wrote:


Boy...Talk about who's "delusional" and "off the deep
end".

There's not ONE WORD in ANYthing Dan said that violates
ANYones
rights or "pricinples" of the Constitution.

Saying anything that an_old_idiot doesn't agree with is 'violating
his
rights'.

not at all

but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander"
is
violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate
whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating
violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country
would be locked up.

not at all

the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced
doesn't change the law


Dag Nab it Jeff...you wound up Markie again. Now he has switched to his
lawyer robes and white wig.

Dan/W4NTI

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...


not at all

but advocating violence against me or even against you "comander" is
violation of civl rights, and is in many places a criminal act
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh B.S. go back to law school. A person can advocate
whatever he wants, its what you "do" about it that counts. If advocating
violence against someone was a criminal act 40% of this country
would be locked up.

not at all

the legal system has so broken down that the law is hardly enforced
doesn't change the law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened'
to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to
hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could threaten
people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what
my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting
confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening
to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of
threat dont mean squat and never has.


J

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:GZZ2f.427494$_o.84828@attbi_s71...


Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened'
to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to
hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could
threaten
people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what
my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting
confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening
to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of
threat dont mean squat and never has.

Lord, I just can't help myself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3461

Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did
and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for
making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true
threat".

Therein lie your answers.

"Honus" wrote in message
news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06...

Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did
and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for
making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true
threat".

Therein lie your answers.

Oh, nuts...here's an article with examples for you. Don't say I never did
you guys any favors.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=556

Honus wrote:
"Honus" wrote in message
news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06...

Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did
and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for
making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true
threat".

Therein lie your answers.

Oh, nuts...here's an article with examples for you. Don't say I never did
you guys any favors.

I can't promise to never say it (I can be forgetfull) but if I should
do so in the future do remind me and I promise to apologize sir

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=556
form the above link quote

On appeal, the defendants argued that the content of the posters and
Web site were protected speech under the First Amendment. But the full
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ACLA's liability, finding that
the content on the posters and Web site constituted an unprotected true
threat.

The court defined a true threat as a statement made when a "reasonable
person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those
to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of
intent to harm." [See Planned Parenthood, 290 f.3d at 1074, 1088.] The
test is an objective one; the defendant does not have to actually
intend to, or be able to, carry out the threat. [Id. at 1076.] In the
Planned Parenthood case, the Ninth Circuit found that it was reasonable
for ACLA members to foresee that the named abortion providers would
interpret the posters and Web site postings as a serious expression of
ACLA members' intent to harm them.

unquote

"Honus" wrote in message news:_x03f.41168$HM1.26616@trnddc04...

"Honus" wrote in message
news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06...

Personally speaking, I think you ought to be able to say what that guy did
and get away with it. But that's just me, and I wasn't on the jury. As for
making a statement of threat, you guys need to research the phrase "true
threat".

Therein lie your answers.

Oh, nuts...here's an article with examples for you. Don't say I never did
you guys any favors.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=556
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Threats made by a "group" that has a long history of violence
against others isnt the same as some john doe citizen making a threat
against another.


J

"Honus" wrote in message news:Sw03f.37075$q81.35200@trnddc06...

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:GZZ2f.427494$_o.84828@attbi_s71...


Double BS,, cite me "one" case where someone "threatened'
to do something and got charged. The legal system hasnt gone to
hell,,,, there never has been a law against making threats. I could
threaten
people all day long and I "might" get a visit by the cops asking me what
my problem is, but thats about all thats going to happen. You are getting
confused with people who may raise a fist or other object and threatening
to hit them, that, technically is assault. But just making a statement of
threat dont mean squat and never has.

Lord, I just can't help myself.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3461

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I should have prefaced my statement by "except" the
president, etc. I was talking private citzen to private citizen.