*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

OK, so that line of your quote was meant to be taken completely separately from your assertion that someone saying they're going to be the next mass shooter is protected speech?

THere were actually 4 separate points in that post. All in response to 4 different points that Ong made. They're all separated neatly so you can follow each exchange easily. Do you need extra help with this?

You weren't saying that the person has every right to threaten to shoot up a school because you have the same right to threaten people in public?

The Ong quote, to which I was responding, makes no mention of 'threatening to shoot up a school'. He mentioned posing with guns, celebrating the anniversary of a shooting, and expressing vague aspirations of being a mass shooter. All of those are protected speech. I assume you're laser-focused on the aspirations of being a mass shooter. But that's not "threatening to shoot up a school". It actually doesn't even mention a school. And it's not even a threat. It mentions no specific target, or time, or place, or anything.

How silly of me to think that your 2 consecutive lines of text in the same post were on the same subject.

Next time be smarter.

[OngBonga]

I just find it hard to imagine how on the one hand you say people shouldn't have an A-15 because there's just no civilian use for it that isn't better served by another gun (fair point), while on the other hand you've got no problem with someone posting on twitter an image of them posing with guns on the anniversary of Sandy Hook with the caption "next mass killer", or at least not enough of a problem to take his guns away and, dare I say it, his freedom for a day or two while he's looked into.

It's NOT a license to insult, defame, slander, harass, or intimidate other people.

But it is a license to say "ima shoot kids yo" while posing with guns.

You need to reasses your free speech ideals.

[BananaStand]

I just find it hard to imagine how on the one hand you say people shouldn't have an A-15 because there's just no civilian use for it that isn't better served by another gun (fair point),

Let me be abundantly clear. In a vacuum, I am wholeheartedly against this. However, in the real world, I understand that congress is going to do *something*. This is merely the least offensive of all proposed remedies. Don't confuse that opinion with support for the measure.

I actually thought I expressed that quite clearly

while on the other hand you've got no problem with someone posting on twitter an image of them posing with guns on the anniversary of Sandy Hook with the caption "next mass killer",

That's right, I have no problem with it. Free speech isn't always pleasant. I have no legal objection to the KKK celebrating the holocaust.

or at least not enough of a problem to take his guns away and, dare I say it, his freedom for a day or two while he's looked into

.
This sounds like the defeated submissive easily oppressed attitude of a country that's spent the last 250 years getting its imperial ass kicked. Here in winner-town, people have rights that are "INALIENABLE". Not for two days, not for two fucking minutes. And DEFINITELY not without due process.

But it is a license to say "ima shoot kids yo" while posing with guns

MadMojoPolly already posted the link to the SCOTUS decision that would explain when and how this would be a credible, and therefore illegal, form of intimidation.