Further discussion on the Palin Reload Rhetoric Shortly after the assassination attempt on Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the deaths of innocent people, the blog page appeared on the web clearly stating “1 down, 534 to go” with the further comments of “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot “indiscriminately.” Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone.” The Blog in question was owned by Travis Corcoran from Arlington Massachusetts and when the Arlington Police visited his home they found numerous weapons and large amounts of ammunition. Since that time his firearm license has been revoked and the Capitol Police have been notified. CBS Boston reported the story below: So now, all the NeoCons are rushing to the defense of this person Thumping the Constitution that Travis Corcoran’s 1st and 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights have been violated! Really? Well, perhaps you so called scholars of the US Constitution had better go back to school and take up Constitutional Law before you make such grand claims. Realistically, Mr. Travis Corcoran could very well be guilty of Treason and Insurrection against the United States Government not to mention that his Constitutional Rights were forfeited the moment he issued threats of violence against federal authorities. Just why is it you Conservative, gun wielding nut jobs feel you all have the rights under the US Constitution issue threats of violence against other citizens in this country? It does NOT and You all had better wake up to the laws in this country and stop ranting that your “Constitutional Rights” are being trampled on, as it is You All who are violating the laws in this country. Limits of Freedom of Speech Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? NO. The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits. Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help. Clear and Present Danger Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action. Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Do you Dipshits feel stupid yet? Again, You NeoCons who wrap yourselves in the Constitution had better start understanding the laws you claim to understand, as people like Travis Corcoran who make threats against the Federal Government WILL NOT be protected by the Constitution and will be convicted of their crimes accordingly.