3 ms·

Not sure if the firearm he mentioned qualifies under the restrictions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. In any event, you are severely underestimating the feder

Not sure if the firearm he mentioned qualifies under the restrictions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Honestly, if John Waters can get by fine, so can this. Loved the jab at the left, as well. Such a descriptive term.

LyndsySimon 12y ago
> Not sure if the firearm he mentioned qualifies under the restrictions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. No, pistols were generally unaffected, with the exception of the 10-round magazine limit. Sigs are generally double-stack pistols, so ten days after that was published he'd have only been able to buy used magazines. > In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Honestly, if John Waters can get by fine, so can this. It seems to depends on the particular speech and the administration in office at the time, no? I'm quite aware of the theoretical and practical protections offered by the First Amendment, but publishing an implied, detailed threat toward a small group of people you work with today is unwise to say the least. > Loved the jab at the left, as well. Such a descriptive term. I actually meant no offense by it. In 1994, gun control was a core issue for the Democratic Party. It seems readily apparent that "the left" and "the Democratic Party" are nearly synonymous when speaking about elections at the national level.
bmelton 12y ago
> In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Given that California passed a law allowing for confiscation of firearms as a result of anonymous tips in response to a diatribe not too dissimilar from the one posted, I'd say that's debatable. That said, I agree that Lyndsy overstated the case that the person would _surely_ be in jail, but it isn't terribly implausible either, depending on the locality.

LyndsySimon 12y ago

> Not sure if the firearm he mentioned qualifies under the restrictions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. No, pistols were generally unaffected, with the exception of the 10-round magazine limit. Sigs are generally double-stack pistols, so ten days after that was published he'd have only been able to buy used magazines. > In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Honestly, if John Waters can get by fine, so can this. It seems to depends on the particular speech and the administration in office at the time, no? I'm quite aware of the theoretical and practical protections offered by the First Amendment, but publishing an implied, detailed threat toward a small group of people you work with today is unwise to say the least. > Loved the jab at the left, as well. Such a descriptive term. I actually meant no offense by it. In 1994, gun control was a core issue for the Democratic Party. It seems readily apparent that "the left" and "the Democratic Party" are nearly synonymous when speaking about elections at the national level.

bmelton 12y ago

> In any event, you are severely underestimating the federal government's general tolerance for "obscenity" and speech that is potentially objectionable. Given that California passed a law allowing for confiscation of firearms as a result of anonymous tips in response to a diatribe not too dissimilar from the one posted, I'd say that's debatable. That said, I agree that Lyndsy overstated the case that the person would _surely_ be in jail, but it isn't terribly implausible either, depending on the locality.