Real Fiero Tech

So..Uhmm.. What's the legality of shooting at a full size cardboard cutout of Barrack Obama... I'm assuming it's legal... but who knows in Police State American.. anyone have an answer for me?
:scratch:

ask a lawyer? I wouldn't do it though man. It might not be illegal but I am sure the SS could make your life harder then it should be.

I wouldn't. If I were to. I wouldn't be discussing it on a public forum, and I would do it at a private range around only people I know. Legal or not, you would probably get a visit from the secret service/

Shaun41178(2) wrote: It might not be illegal but I am sure the SS could make your life harder then it should be.

I'd take his advice. It's like a lot of other things. They may not be illegal, but doing them just puts you in a spotlight you probably don't want to be in.

DiggityBiggity wrote:So..Uhmm.. What's the legality of shooting at a full size cardboard cutout of Barrack Obama... I'm assuming it's legal... but who knows in Police State American.. anyone have an answer for me?
:scratch:

What is the point of that? That is pretty sick, man.

stimpy wrote:

DiggityBiggity wrote:So..Uhmm.. What's the legality of shooting at a full size cardboard cutout of Barrack Obama... I'm assuming it's legal... but who knows in Police State American.. anyone have an answer for me?
:scratch:

What is the point of that? That is pretty sick, man.

:withstupid:

I hate bush, but I'm not going to shoot a picture of him or burn an effigy of him... heh.

Would you shoot one of OBL?

Sure. He's not the president.

Its *freedom of speech* just a waste of time IMO. Shoot stuff that blows up.

Sure it is, it's just in bad taste.

Just because I can put a 6' cross in my front yard, doesn't mean I should

CincinnatiFiero wrote:Its *freedom of speech* just a waste of time IMO. Shoot stuff that blows up.

The question of legality in the act has nothing to do with freedom of speech. And even if it did, just because you have the freedom of speech, does not mean that that is unconditional.

I vote no as well, not worth it.

...

V8Archie wrote:

I said Obama... not George W

Lulz. That is messed up.

Aaron wrote:

CincinnatiFiero wrote:Its *freedom of speech* just a waste of time IMO. Shoot stuff that blows up.

The question of legality in the act has nothing to do with freedom of speech. And even if it did, just because you have the freedom of speech, does not mean that that is unconditional.

If it was on private property and the gun is registered and its legal to discharge a firearm in that area I would assume its legal. I totally agree with you on it not being unconditional, hence the * *s the "liberals" have been harping on freedom of speech a lot recently, I think it would be interesting to use an act like this to throw it back at them. "WELL YOU CANT DO THAT!" sure I can, freedom of speech. Much like all the Bush bashing people burnt effigies of him. Same idea in my book.

CincinnatiFiero wrote: If it was on private property and the gun is registered and its legal to discharge a firearm in that area I would assume its legal. I totally agree with you on it not being unconditional, hence the * *s the "liberals" have been harping on freedom of speech a lot recently, I think it would be interesting to use an act like this to throw it back at them. "WELL YOU CANT DO THAT!" sure I can, freedom of speech. Much like all the Bush bashing people burnt effigies of him. Same idea in my book.

It isn't that he's shooting, it's what he's shooting at. If it can be conceived as a threat, then he has a rough life ahead of him. Whether or not he meant it as a threat or not, that would eventually be for a jury to decide. But whether he's right or wrong, do you really want your life in the hands of 12 random people, if it can be so easily avoided by just shooting at a target instead?

Burning a picture and shooting at one are in fact two different acts. One is not a plausible method of killing the president, the other is. So we can reason that the first is not a threat, whereas the second might be.

Freedom of speech is under the umbrella of many other laws that come first. Such as trespassing, threatening others, interrupting traffic, posing a danger to yourself or others, etc. Walk into the city hall and start cussing out the secretary. We'll see how far you get.

I don't think that shooting at a cutout of the president would get you any more notice than having your name on a Secret Service watch list. It certainly wouldn't get you charged with plotting to assassinate the president (what does that fall under, anyway?). The burden of proof would be on the gov't in that case to prove that you were plotting to assassinate the President... which will be hard because evidence to that effect doesn't exist... because you weren't.

As far as rights go, the whole point of a right is that law can not restrict it. Your rights are beyond the reach of government. The only thing that limits your exercise of your rights are the rights of others. "My right to swing my fist ends somewhere short of your nose" as the old saying goes. But the government can't tell me that I can't swing my fist.

The Dark Side of Will wrote:I don't think that shooting at a cutout of the president would get you any more notice than having your name on a Secret Service watch list. It certainly wouldn't get you charged with plotting to assassinate the president (what does that fall under, anyway?). The burden of proof would be on the gov't in that case to prove that you were plotting to assassinate the President... which will be hard because evidence to that effect doesn't exist... because you weren't.

As far as rights go, the whole point of a right is that law can not restrict it. Your rights are beyond the reach of government. The only thing that limits your exercise of your rights are the rights of others. "My right to swing my fist ends somewhere short of your nose" as the old saying goes. But the government can't tell me that I can't swing my fist.

I'd tend to agree, but even that is far from a place I want to be. It falls under the treason laws, so the penalties aren't much fun. You're probably right (I'd say you are, but in this day in age, and with the person we have in office, I don't think the Gov would take these things very lightly).

Even that second saying is wrong. Because, if you swing your fist, and I feel threatened, then I can legally defend myself right then, even though you haven't touched me. Your right to swing your fist ends as soon as you swing at someone.

a federal atorney could easily twist it and have a psychologist say that it shows signs of mental instability, and that you are a threat to the president abd people around you, then you end up an unwilling participant in pharmaceutical practice (mental ward)