The Travis Corcoran Saga

Last week, law enforcement officials in Arlington, Massachusetts seized the (legally owned) guns of Travis Corcoran, a blogger and owner of an online comic book store. They also revoked Corcoran's gun permit. They were responding to posts on Corcoran's blog, TJICistan, put up shortly after the Tucscon shootings which could be interpreted as a threat against members of Congress. (Corcoran's blog is no longer online.) In particular, Corcoran posted the phrase "1 down, 534 to go," followed by an excerpt of a news account of the shootings. He then added:

It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot "indiscriminately".

Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone.

Please!

On Friday, I put up a post on my personal blog about Corcoran and about the reaction from ThinkProgress blogger Alex Seitz-Wald. Seitz-Wald and I discussed Corcoran, partisanship, and violent rhetoric yesterday on The Alyona Show. You can watch video of our discussion below.

More on Corcoran: Over the weekend, someone sent me the three posts that got Corcoran into trouble. I'm not going to repost them in their entirety because I'm not sure of the circumstances under which his blog was taken offline. But after reading them, it seems clear to me that the initial post was a crass, insensitive attempt at humor, and nothing more—akin to posting a joke about killing lawyers, but posting it, say, hours after someone just shot up a law office.

That first post is the one quoted in national media coverage of Corcoran. But in the next two posts, Corcoran explicitly says the first post was a joke. He also concedes that it was "tasteless" and "callous", though he also weirdly refuses to apologize for it. Those next two posts also lay out Corcoran's politics, as well his theories on the morality of armed insurrection. I don't agree with portions of the posts, but on the whole they're pretty thoughtful. Corcoran is also a devout Catholic, and he bases his opinions about armed anti-government resistance on Catholic Just War Doctrine. He writes about armed revolution on a continuum, endorsing, for example, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and the American Revolution, but also explaining why he believes political assassinations like the one Jared Loughner attempted in Tucson are immoral and shouldn't be condoned.

Of course, thoughtful as those posts were, there's also the matter of timing. Yes, it's interesting and provocative to debate which armed uprisings throughout history were justified and which weren't, or how tyrannical a government would need to get before such an uprising becomes morally justified. But 24 hours after an attempted political assassination that killed five people, while the country is still reeling from that attack, and just after you've posted a comment for all the world to see about shooting politicians and their staff . . . this is not the time to have that discussion.

But here's the important thing: None of this is criminal. Nor should it be. I can see why law enforcement officials might have initially been concerned with Corcoran's first post.  But it should also have been immediately clear upon reading Corcoran's subsequent posts (to which law enforcement authorities presumably have access) that he was joking, albeit in a particularly tone-deaf and socially retarded manner. He explicitly denounces political assassinations like the one attempted in Tucson in those posts, and he explains why.

So far, there have been no criminal charges filed against Corcoran. But from what I can tell as of this writing, they're leaving him in limbo about the possibility of charges in the future. He has also had his property seized and his Second Amendment rights suspended. The post quoted above was either a criminal threat, or it was protected speech. If it was protected speech, you can't take Corcoran's property and revoke his gun rights as punishment for writing something that was rude, but not illegal. (A sheriff in Florida Iowa recently learned this very lesson.)

Corcoran was crass, offensive, and tone-deaf. But it shouldn't be illegal to be any of those things. Unless there's more to this than just what Corcoran wrote on his blog, law enforcement officials ought to clear his name, return his guns, and reinstate his gun permit.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It look like that was a sheriff in Iowa, not Florida. It's a different Osceola County.

  • Almanian||

    For fuck's sake:

    1) Sarah Palin
    2) BOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooosh
    3) Rush Limbaugh

    THEY clearly caused Corcoran to post the hate-filled vile. Why not take them down*?

    * meaning, in a non-violent, government sanctioned way...like, say, a SWAT raid on each of their residences in the middle of the night

  • Paul||

    * meaning, in a non-violent, government sanctioned way...like, say, a SWAT raid on each of their residences in the middle of the night

    Why do you hate dogs?

  • ||

    It's amazing how quickly the "violent rhetoric made him do it" bullshit turns into people having their civil rights violated. So I guess the heated rhetoric about "violent rhetoric" is also bad, so those who are most vocally condemning it should shut the hell up, by their own logic, right?

  • Almanian||

    I blame Bush

  • ||

    I blame you. And JW.

  • Almanian||

    I'll cop to it.

  • ||

    I blame myself. Really.

  • Almanian||

    Dude, I totally got your back

  • ||

    It's nice to see you finally take some responsibility for your crimes.

  • Almanian||

    I now blame grtray

  • ||

    I now blame grtray

    I like this. Where's the frenzied mob looking for a scapegoat?

  • ||

    Boy reporter Alex doesn't seem to know very much about what he's actually writing about. You'd think someone writing on a politically-oriented blog would actually know something about, you know, ideology and politics, without having to google the definition.

    Also interesting how posting black humor on your own blog is now enough for Alex to pronounce him "crazy." That says more about his own obviously limited world view than Travis'.

  • Almanian||

    black humor

    See what being "inclusive" gets you? THE MAN KEEPING YOU DOWN, that's what.

  • Paul||

    I'm waiting, whiskey shot in hand, for the first "fire in a crowded theater" comment.

  • grtray||

    Right, let's not mention the relevant legal precedent.

  • sevo||

    grtray|1.25.11 @ 7:32PM|#
    "Right, let's not mention the relevant legal precedent."

    "Relevant" to ignoramuses.

  • ||

    I've got you covered.

  • nicole||

    Yes, it's interesting and provocative to debate which armed uprisings throughout history were justified and which weren't, or how tyrannical a government would need to get before such an uprising becomes morally justified. But 24 hours after an attempted political assassination that killed five people...is not the time to have that discussion.

    I sympathize with this point of view, and yes, on some level these comments were "socially retarded." But how does this not amount to basically asking anarchists to not be anarchists for a week or so after some kind of quasi-political violence? I'm not about to make a political philosophy off-limits for that.

  • JD the elder||

    Yeah, I wish more people had picked up on this. My political philosophy is my political philosophy from the moment I wake to the moment I go to sleep, from New Year's Day to New Year's Eve. Saying that there are times when it is "not appropriate" to express one's political philosophy, or whatever mealy-mouthed expression you choose, is allowing your opponents to silence you because you hurt their feelings.

  • Jigga Wha?||

    Glad to see you're not trying to deny that he was libertarian anymore. That was pretty insulting for you to do that. I read him regularly. He's an admitted jackass, but also obviously in the anarcho-capitalist corner of libertarianism.

    Besides that crass post, he also had his slogan on every page: Rope!. That being his preferred method of tyrannicide. He also regularly made reference to the large stash of dead hobos strewn about his place. Apparently he put a few tablecloths on them before the cops removed his weapons.

    Point being: That stuff was par for the course. He did not weep for a single politician in the entire archive.

    I'm still curious why you so stridently objected to his being described libertarian, Radley. Are you that afraid of Seitz-Wald's guilt-by-association?

  • Radley Balko||

    I objected to him being called a libertarian under the assumption that his initial post was an actual threat, not dark humor. Pretty much by definition, calling for the assassination of politicians and their staffs isn't compatible with libertarianism.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jigga Wha?,

    Glad to see you're not trying to deny that he was libertarian anymore.


    Impossible to prove a negative. I ask you: Was he?

    I read him regularly. He's an admitted jackass, but also obviously in the anarcho-capitalist corner of libertarianism.


    Every group will have at least ONE asshole. You found ours, you are theirs, clearly.

  • Patrick||

    "Corcoran was crass, offensive, and tone-deaf. But it shouldn't be illegal to be any of those things. Unless there's more to this than just what Corcoran wrote on his blog, law enforcement officials ought to clear his name, return his guns, and reinstate his gun permit."

    There isn't anything more to it than Corcoran being crass and tone-deaf. But this is the internet. Soup du jour, every day.

    When you gratuitously brought up your history with him at the Agitator, that wasn't your finest moment, with all due (and it is due) respect. To the extent that the asshat from Think Progress was attacking or insinuating something about you personally, and he wasn't, you dignified a ludicrous accusation by responding that you'd banned TJIC from the Agitator. But since the Think Progress asshat was talking about Rand Paul, not Radley Balko, what was the point of that?

    It seemed weirdly, and oddly, defensive.

  • ||

    It seemed weirdly, and oddly, defensive.

    This.

    There seems to be an overly ambitious effort, at least on the part of Radley and Alyana (sp?), to distance themselves from Corcoran.

    I'm actually a bit surprised by Radley's reaction. I would have thought that he would have been more sympathetic to a man who plainly exercised his free speech rights and was penalized with the loss of another right and without any due process at that.

    Instead it turns into more about what some fairly ignorant blogger wrote and how Radley doesn't like the smell of it, rather than a gross overstepping of authority by the police.

    What happened to Travis was fucking chilling. THAT should be the focus here, not pretending that he's a boorish party crasher with inconvenient thoughts.

  • Radley Balko||

    I did ban him, because I don't find the twisted humor appropriate. That doesn't mean I think he should be arrested for it, or otherwise have his civil rights curtailed.

    And it wasn't defensiveness. Seitz-Wald used a tweet about civil liberties that I wrote to link someone he presumed was endorsing Loughner's assassination attempt to Rand Paul. I was pointing out the absurdity of attempting such a link with a series of rhetorical questions.

  • ||

    I'm heartened to see Radley post a follow up here, where it gets a wider reading. I didn't agree with his initial assessment of things, but also realized he couldn't see Travis's follow up posts and didn't read the TJIC enough (ever) to know that it was par for the course.
    Now Radley knows and has posted a re-assessment, kudos to him.

    I agree with some of the others, this is chilling. I have businesses that could be threatened by over-zealous or vindictive government officials. It has certainly made me re-invigorated my feelings about posting anonymously (the above name is a pseudonym) and I'm likely to start doing it through proxy servers to be sure.

  • ||

    I think what bugs me the most about Radley's reaction to this is all the hanky waving and high-stepping to say "He's not with us! No, really!"

    We get it. You don't like his style. But, Travis Corcoran has had unwarranted violations of his 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment rights. Can we focus on that now?

    My gut tells me that if Travis weren't a self-identified libertarian, we would be focusing on the event and not how uncomfortable he makes some of us feel.

  • grtray||

    I read his full blog posts too. Absolutely this guy should not be allowed to keep his arsenal.

    How does your reason for not reposting his full blog posts even make sense?

    I'm not going to repost them in their entirety because I'm not sure of the circumstances under which his blog was taken offline.

    Just admit that you don't want to repost them because you don't buy your own bullshit.

  • Almanian||

    Awe, that's cute! If that's an arsenal, I have an armory in my basement, Alice.

    Go troll at Daily Kos or Feministing with your girlfriends, candyass.

  • ||

    You're joking about that being an arsenal, right? Or are you just a huge pussy?

  • grtray||

    Jared took out how many people with far less?

  • ||

    So you're a huge pussy. Got it.

  • Paul||

    Jared took out how many people with far less?

    So did this guy. What's your point?

    Tokyo stabbing: Five killed as man goes on knife rampage in Akihabara
  • grtray||

    Guns are different then knives. You lose.

  • Paul||

    Nope, you just lost because I responded directly to "taking out people" and "with far less". And to that you had no answer. Boom, we're done here.

  • ||

    But Paul, it said that you lose! I'm so confused. How could it declare itself winner on the Intertubez and not actually have won anything? That never happens.

  • grtray||

    I referenced Jared. How many people did he kill with a knife?

  • Paul||

    Again, I see what you're doing here.

    The object point of your post was to suggest that the amount of guns held by Travis was inherently dangerous in their amount and type, further attempting to solidify your point by use of the word "aresenal".

    You attempted to contrast the possible damage done by such arrays of weapons by pointing out that Lougher "took out" many people with "far less". Ie, the post wasn't so much about "Jared" as it was about the possible danger that even fewer weapons could inflict, thus justifying the need to confiscate Travis' "arsenal".

    My response was that one need not an "arsenal" of weapons to "take out" a large number of people, that it can be done with "far less", even far less than Loughner used-- meaning that your metric for determining the danger of his arsenal is completely bogus.

    But I'm now beginning to realize I'm trying to describe color to a blind man.

  • grtray||

    And I don't need a plane ticket to fly cross country when I could take a balloon instead. Same thing right?

    Yes, I think it would be preferable if psychos didn't have access to semi-automatic weapons and the ability to purchase more than one.

  • ||

    Luckily, no one cares what you think. That must eat you up inside.

  • No Wait!||

    You're MNG's less-entertaining cousin, right!?

  • Goddamnit, Epi||

    No Wait was, of course, for asstray

  • ||

    No Wait was, of course, for asstray

    I figured, but thanks for the clarification.

  • sevo||

    grtray|1.25.11 @ 7:53PM|#
    "Yes, I think it would be preferable if psychos didn't have access to semi-automatic weapons and the ability to purchase more than one."

    I think it would be preferable for you to shove your stupid up your butt.

  • Paul||

    And this is why we don't put people like you in charge of interpreting the constitution or diagnosing mental illness.

  • ||

    Actually, I think this is exactly the type in charge of interpreting the constitution or diagnosing mental illness.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If your goal is simply to travel from point A to point B, regardless of time and/or convenience, then yes, it is the same thing.

    Similarly, if my goal is simply to kill people and have no guns at hand nor access to them, do I stop wanting to kill people, or do I just find another means by which to kill them?

    Fucking mens rea, how do they work?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    How is killing 5 people with a gun effectively any different than killing 5 people with a knife?

  • grtray||

    Because Jared effectively killed 6 with a gun and injured 13.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Did Jared do it with his Subway sandwich?

    Eat at Jimmy John's!

  • ||

    No, Jared gave everyone aides.

  • grtray||

    I'm a douche.

    But you knew this.

    Back to jacking off onto my own stomach

  • Paul||

    Win on the caption of the picture:

    Police in Arlington, Massachusetts seized weapons from a businessman who wrote a blog post threatening lawmakers.

    Did he threaten lawmakers?

  • grtray||

    What else would you call Congress?

  • Apogee||

    Lots of things.

  • Paul||

    Answer the question, did he threaten lawmakers with actionable language?*

    *because I can see what you're doing here, you did note that I italicized the word 'threaten', not 'lawmakers'. Right?

  • grtray||

    A fair reading of his blog posts indicates that yes he did. But you wouldn't know that since you haven't read them and Balko will not repost them.

  • Almanian||

    Wait - I'm stuck on why you want to use the word "threaten" as a substitute for "Congress" - cause that's what you're calling for backthread, Alice.

    But you knew that, being a pedantic fuck on loan from Jezebel.

  • Paul||

    A fair reading of his blog posts indicates that yes he did

    Yeah yeah, fire in crowded theaters blah blah. I don't want "a fair reading", I want to know what he said exactly.

  • Paul||

    I would also like to add that if by "a fair reading" then why hasn't he been charged with a crime, then?

  • grtray||

    Who says that he won't be?

  • Apogee||

    Who says that he won't be?

    Color me suspicious of any charge based on political speech that isn't immediately filed.

    It's nice to know, however, that you would have locked up Jefferson.

    What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
  • ||

    A fair reading of his blog posts indicates that yes he did. But you wouldn't know that since you haven't read them and Balko will not repost them.

    I read them as well and in no way did he threaten anyone at any time.

    Perhaps you'd like to share with the class what, exactly, his threats were?

  • grtray||

    grtray|1.25.11 @ 8:04PM|#
    Who says that he won't be?

    See me arguing like a middle schooler who just got done jerking off onto his mom's picture?

    That's what you get for feeding trolls, Reasonoids.

  • grtray||

    Did you miss the first one? Titled "1 down, 534 to go"

    Or the followup where he explained why in step by step fashion it's ok to murder elected officials?

  • ||

    Yep. I read all the posts.

    You do have the text where he actually and literally threatened someone or a particular group, rather than just express his thoughts?

    Right, you don't, because you're talking out of your ass.

    Did you bother to read the posts where he said that he would never do such a thing and that an armed revolution would be horrible for everyone? Did you read the posts where he discussed the ideas in great detail? Or did you just react as the hyberbolic spaz that you look to be?

  • grtray||

    So Congress isn't a particular group now? Sorry, it's not at all like "lawyer jokes" or joking about "politicians."

  • sevo||

    grtray|1.25.11 @ 8:32PM|#
    "So Congress isn't a particular group now? Sorry, it's not at all like "lawyer jokes" or joking about "politicians.""

    Because an ignoramus says so?

  • ||

    Again, TEAM BLUE-boy, where did he *threaten* anyone? Terse, angry words aren't threats.

    Actually, they're speech. There's this document that talks to that. You might want to check it out.

  • sevo||

    grtray|1.25.11 @ 7:16PM|#
    "I read his full blog posts too. Absolutely this guy should not be allowed to keep his arsenal."

    We have the constitution to protect us from assholes like you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: grtray,

    I read his full blog posts too. Absolutely this guy should not be allowed to keep his arsenal.


    Because only quiet and obedient people should have guns... they kind of people that would not have guns anyway.

    How does your reason for not reposting his full blog posts even make sense?


    Boredom?

    I'm not going to repost them in their entirety because I'm not sure of the circumstances under which his blog was taken offline.


    Lest tax-paid, trigger-happy goons go to YOUR house to take YOUR guns - whether you have them or not.

    Just admit that you don't want to repost them because you don't buy your own bullshit.


    As clearly one thing follows the other....

    [I like Statist Fucks - they're silly!]

  • ||

    No, THIS is an arsenal.

  • ||

    AAAAhhrgh ! My Eyes !

  • Paul||

    Off topic... while looking up stuff on this TJIC fellow, I came across this.

    I have a pretty liberal view of the world and I'm no fan of censorship groups. But in the case of Skins, MTV has finally gone too far.

    Drink!

  • Apogee||

    Absolutely this guy should not be allowed to keep his arsenal.

    Allowed? It's nice to know that (remember - no charges filed) you feel that this guy's rights are bestowed upon him by the government.

    You have what I would term an irrational trust in government authority.

  • grtray||

    He surrendered his weapons. They were not taken by force.

  • Paul||

    "Surrendered" has nothing to do with "not taken by force".

    You do understand that, right? If the SWAT team encircles my house with assault weapons pointed hither and yon and yells over the bullhorn, "come out with your hands up!" and I come out with my hands up, you can't exactly separate 'surrender' and 'force' as disparate concepts.

    Now you're being willfully ignorant.

  • grtray||

    You haven't even read his blog posts and you're calling those who have ignorant. Ha!

  • Paul||

    So re-post the meat and potatoes. We're all on pins and needles.

  • grtray||

    I read it on the guy's blog, which is no longer online. Probably his lawyer advised him to take it down.

    But Balko here says he has access to the incriminating posts, so let's see'em!

  • grtray||

    Probably

    SPECULATIVE! Sustained...

    Go finish cleaning your cum off your mom's pic, self - it's all over here.

  • grtray||

    You're right, doesn't take a lawyer to know you should scrub incriminating stuff off the internet once a story goes national and the fuzz is investigating.

  • sevo||

    grtray|1.25.11 @ 8:25PM|#
    "You're right, doesn't take a lawyer to know you should scrub incriminating stuff off the internet..."

    No, but it takes a true, well-practiced brain-dead ignoramus to presume you can "scrub" anything from the net.
    That'd be you, grtray.

  • My Fucking||

    GOD you're stupid. Go troll elsewhere with your own kind and leave the adults alone.

    kthxbai!

  • sevo||

    grtray|1.25.11 @ 7:34PM|#
    "He surrendered his weapons. They were not taken by force."
    Bullshit.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: grtray,

    He surrendered his weapons. They were not taken by force.


    Indeed, the heavily-armed officers did not use The Force to take his guns - he surrendered them voluntarily, as the heavily-armed and highly dangerous, trigger-happy and tax-paid goons asked for them nicely.

  • Apogee||

    He surrendered his weapons. They were not taken by force.

    That's impossible, as you believe that he only possesses them at the whim of the government.

    From the article:
    Police also seized "a large amount" of weapons from Corcoran's home in Arlington, Massachusetts, last week, according to police Chief Frederick Ryan.

    Corcoran's firearms license has been suspended as authorities investigate how and where the weapons were purchased, the police chief said.

    Odd that you can't seem to respond or clarify your comments, which seem to indicate a position in favor of complete abdication of certain constitutional rights.

  • Cyto||

    I like the fishing expedition to find any possible crime related to guns. He might as well have said "we didn't find any legitimate wrongdoing, so we're going to hold on to all of his stuff while we hunt around for a reason to charge him with a crime. "

  • ||

    Like many of us (of all political stripes), Travis is given to moral outrage and fiery rhetoric. Big deal. A zillion angry political web posts a day are equally credible "threats". Someone should start collecting them.

  • grtray||

    How about you mention the blog post of his where he says he was interviewed by the Boston Herald (the conservative paper)? Clearly the Herald wanted to do a piece about how this gun owner was being unjustly accused blah blah blah. Funny thing is that the Herald never ran it. Would have put egg on the faces of all their right wing columnists saying that right wingers aren't *exactly how this guy really is*.

  • ||

    TEAM RED TEAM BLUE RAH RAH RAH

    You're so fucking tedious.

  • sevo||

    grtray|1.25.11 @ 7:46PM|#
    "How about you mention the blog post of his where he says he was interviewed by the Boston Herald (the conservative paper)? Clearly the Herald wanted to do a piece about how this gun owner was being unjustly accused blah blah blah. Funny thing is that the Herald never ran it. Would have put egg on the faces of all their right wing columnists saying that right wingers aren't *exactly how this guy really is*."

    WIH does this have to do with *anything*?
    Trying out the straw-grabber you got for Christmas?

  • My Fucking||

    GOD

    He's using the straw he pulled from his ass after self-felching

  • My Fucking||

    GOD you remain a moron.

    Please off yourself and leave the world a better place, you self-gerbiling cocksucker?

  • grtray||

    OK guys! Joke's over! I'm a lonely, zit-faced middle schooler, sitting on my mom's lap before I hop off to run to my room and jerk off into a picture of her!

    Been fun playing, but mommy calls!

    After I cum on mom's pic, I'm going to carefully wipe the picture and lick up my own cum while fisting my own ass!

    Neat, huh!!

  • ||

    People need to face the reality that they are not protected by the law. The law is always only what those with the authority to enforce it say it is. You need to let go of the quaint notion that the rule of law counts for anything in this country. or that truth or sanity counts for anything, for that matter. This country is corrupt beyond redemption, just as every state is. I have finally stopped kidding myself about "limited government" and the rule of law. It is always the rule of man.

    You give people power and authority over others and they will abuse it and use it to enrich and further empower themselves and exploit and violate others. It doesn't have to be that way, except for the fact that only the worst people are inclined to hanker for power and authority over others. Decent people do not want power and authority over others.

  • Angela Davis||

    Right on, my lower-case brutha!

  • Old Mexican||

    So far, there have been no criminal charges filed against Corcoran.


    In the meantime, his 4th Amendment rights are violated with wanton abandon.

  • ||

    I can put up all three (four?) posts if there is a consensus They are still in my reader. It will be a few of hours from now as I am off to play hockey and drink beer.

    Maybe I haven't read him long enough, but I don't remember posts about dead hobos. There was an awesome story about taking the chimney out of his house, starting from the bottom in the basement.

  • ||

    "I don't remember posts about dead hobos."

    Trust me, they were there. They're some of his best work!

  • Roberta X||

    Glad you finally saw my point, Radley.

  • Elliot||

    I criticized Corcoran on the comment section of his article on the day of the shooting. However, on Jan 12, he posted a "flow chart" (his website is down, but you can see it on the RSS feed):

    TJIC: Next question: do you think that a schizophrenic individual shooting up a politician, a judge, and a dozen civilians in Arizon served any purpose at all, or advanced civil rights in any way? If you answer “yes”, stop here. Your conception of “useful” differs radically from TJIC’s. Step 6: Congratulations – you agree with TJIC that the Arizona shooting was a tragedy, of which no good will come. Next question: do you think that an armed revolution, including assassinations, is morally legitimate in the US today? If you answer “Yes”, stop here. If you answer “No”, congratulations, you agree with TJIC.

    If he had said that on the day of the shooting, I probably wouldn't have bothered to comment.

    Radley Balko: "But he isn’t remotely libertarian, an ideology where the non-initiation of force is a pretty fundamental principle."

    As I've argued here and elsewhere, I think the most effective action at this point is time is massive, non-violent civil disobedience. Not because I think that violence against particular individuals in government is an aggressive initiation of force—as has been documented on this website and elsewhere, many in the government have been employing the use of force against people who have done nothing to hurt anyone else—but because (1) such an act will be widely perceived as an initiation of force, ignoring what the government has done to people, and (2) the net result will be a pointless waste, accomplishing nothing positive. But at some point, if the government gets sufficiently awful and if peaceful attempts fail, I will change my mind about engaging in violence, as was done in the American Revolution, so long as attacks don't involve the killing of innocents. I hope like crazy that we never get to that point in my lifetime.

  • ||

    Well said.

    The question I would like to see answered is "At what point is an armed uprising justified?" Do we have to wait until there are mass graves or disappearences?

    I'd rather we didn't, I like my peaceful life and want my children to grow up in a stable society, but what we have now is a continuous, slow erosion of liberty and a steady slide towards tyranny ultimately. I don't see any meaningful, positive change coming anytime soon.

    Does the gummint require a more pointed statement about who is supposed to be ruling whom?

  • David||

    I'd dispute that Corcoran's further posts completely repudiate assassination.

    " I don’t think that anything productive is going to come of killing either the senator or the judge, but, yes, I think that it is morally legitimate to kill pro-regulation senators and pro-regulation judges, if it can be done without harming innocents."

  • ||

    When I read this line:

    "as has been documented on this website and elsewhere, many in the government have been employing the use of force against people who have done nothing to hurt anyone else"

    I initially read "employing" as "enjoying" instead.

    Upon further review, it doesn't really seem to invalidate the comment by interpreting it that way, does it?

  • IceTrey||

    The Giffords shooting wasn't a "political assassination". Whatever reasons he had they weren't political.

  • ||

    This guy ain't getting his guns or firearms license back. He should, but he isn't.

    The local CLEO only has to deem him "not suitable" and he's within the law in denying the license. This can be appealed but it's unlikely they'd overturn it.

    2A rights are extremely limited in MA. I used to live there and it's one of the main reasons I moved out of the Commonwealth.

  • Bob Sprague||

    Glad to see that "reason" is alive and well in the comments posted to Reason.com.

    Bob Sprague

  • ||

    ...says the man who

    (1) tangled with Travis in small town politics several years back

    (2) instigated the firestorm and filed false police reports against Travis

    (3) is going to have his ass sued off in short order, if I know Travis the way I think I do.

  • gritsly||

    Drink?

  • Brian Dunbar||

    "Glad to see that "reason" is alive and well ..."

    You must be knew here.

  • ||

    Sweet!

  • ||

    Radley says that Travis is tone-deaf and socially retarded.

    Radley is being horribly unfair here. I bet he's never even _heard_ Travis play guitar.

  • LASIS||

    New York Law School's legal journalism blog recently published a piece on whether the comic retailer's 2nd Amendment rights were violated or if he was a dangerous threat. Please take a look for the legalities of this story: http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/.....hallenged/

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement