He definitely sounds like someone who hasn’t marched full gear with 20 lbs of ammo. I wouldn’t worry if I lived near him, he’ll make it 20 miles, get a whole foot blister, and die from the infection.

>...in all likelihood resort to robbing and killing innocent people for their supplies... >niggers? >>yes >spics? >>yes >chinks? >>yes >nips? >>yes >gooks? >>yes >sandjews? >>yes >jews? >>yes So sure. Depends on what you define as innocent and what you think a person is. Also to be very clear; I DO NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE IN ANY WAY. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR POAL IN ANY WAY. >hurrrrr fed ____ >[The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States. In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States. The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, "[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President" than a "true threat." In so holding, the Court established that there is a "true threat" exception to protected speech, but also that the statement must be viewed in its context and distinguished from protected hyperbole. The opinion, however, stopped short of defining precisely what constituted a "true threat." ](https://archive.md/zCQfy) [Nothing specific. Nothing actionable. No times. No places. No dates. No events. No names. This is what protected speech looks like.](#spoiler)