Quote of the Day
Your “horrifying if you believe in the First Amendment” drivel is the exact cognitive blind spot these cells exploit…weaponizing free speech as a get-out-of-consequences card for those who piss on it with bullets and bombs.
Brandenburg v. Ohio carved it out decades ago:
protected speech stops cold at incitement to imminent lawless action that actually happens. They didn’t just talk; they executed.
The Constitution doesn’t shield arsonists, shooters, or terror enablers any more than it shields Al-Qaeda sympathizers handing out bomb manuals.
This verdict isn’t chilling dissent; it’s lethal accountability, the kind that deters the next cell of ideologically poisoned fuckwits from turning public facilities into kill zones.
So spare me your performative horror, you fucking idiot.
The jury saw the pathology for what it was. The FBI built the case on it. And the law cut them down.
Cry harder, sweetheart.
LHGrey™️ @grey4626
Posted on X, March 14, 2026
This was in response to:
It is interesting this person believes the First Amendment protects the destruction of government property and shooting a police officer with an AR-15. They must have crap for brains. With that broad of scope for the First Amendment, just imagine what the Second Amendment must protect. Why, it must protect the use of artillery dropping HE on the U.S. Capital or some such thing.
Protesting =/= shooting at officers.
Protesting =/= burning buildings and cars.
Protesting =/= blatant obstruction of justice.
Protesting =/= rioting, burning, looting, and murder.
Protesting =/= attacking those who hold different opinions.
You have to remember that, for far too many lefties, “violence” is what their opponents do and “speech” is what they do. In practice, *that is how they define those terms*, with no regard to what the words normally mean.
Hence, violence like this is “speech” and suppressing it violates the first amendment, while their opponents saying stuff they don’t like is “violence” and those people should be arrested or killed.
If it weren’t for double-standards, the Left would have no standards at all.
Usually, it’s one of two things:
1) performative – they are lying that they are concerned and trying to get people who actually care about that stuff concerned erroneously
2) brainlessly partisan – they think they believe certain things, but they only worry about “bad” things when it’s the “bad” people in power, and then, EVERYTHING is a “bad” thing, whether it actually fits the supposed ethical concerns or not (and of course, NONE of it is bad when the “good” people are in power, even if it does fit)
Surprisingly, I don’t think “both” actually happens much in this case. A rare situation of limited human stupidity.
I have always said that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
To me it falls under the lack of education. Our system is designed to be a constitutional republic. Not a democracy, where one thinks the rules can be changed by vote and group-think.
We live in a communist insurgency wrapped in the cloak of democracy. Where any lie can be told to justify the means and acts of the communists.
What is severely lacking is the educational part.
Good news? The lesson will be taught.
Bad news? The longer you wait to teach it, the harder it is on everyone to learn it.
As McGruff perfectly put it. Consequences.