A blogger from Arlington, Massachusetts has had his gun license temporarily suspended after he wrote a disturbing post regarding the Tucson shootings and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords titled, "1 Down 534 To Go."
According to WBZ-TV, which reviewed the blog, the "1" refers to Giffords while the "534" refers to all members of Congress -- both Democrat and Republican. The blog site was not operational at the time of this story's publication.
“It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone," 39-year-old Travis Corcoran -- who owns a comic book store -- reportedly wrote on the blog.
As a result, police are investigating the “suitability” of Corcoran having a firearms license. Currently, Corcoran has not been arrested or charged with a crime.
The story, however, has prompted a lively debate on WBZ's website regarding the balance between free speech and protecting people from threats.
"Doesn’t that man have the freedom to speak?," writes commenter "Kay." "Was that right taken away from us? I may not agree with what he wrote but he has the right to voice his opinion."
Commenter "kasser "responded: "He absolutely do have the freedom of speech, up to the point where he is threatening with violence or suggesting violence. 'Target only Politicians' in my mind, fall perfectly under that criteria. The debate about Freedom of Speech for some always fail as some believe Freedom of Speech comes with the right to say anything you want. ... Yeah – those gun permits comes with a little responsibility too."
Matthew agrees: "I am very pro-gun. I am also for freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want without consequences. What he did is close to a direct threat on someone’s life. Do you think you can just go downstairs in the morning, threaten your wife with her life, and then go buy a gun after she files charges against you?"
Yet Jake thinks it's a slippery slope: "Ans [sic] 'suggesting' violence is a crime? How about implying violence? Or asking a rhetorical question about violence?"
It's a debate that's likely to rage on. What do you think? Was a suspension and investigation warranted?