FIGHTING WORDS: A call to arms?

"What we’re seeing right now under the Biden-Harris administration is an agenda that is so radical it is taking us beyond socialism to an agenda of National DECLINE where nothing of our founding principles and values will remain." - Mike Pence

Did I hear this right? Did the president of the United States issue what could be perceived as a direct threat with the possibility of using F-15s & nuclear weapons against his own citizens?...

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon. [Those who] say the blood of the, the blood of patriots, you know, and all this stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government.”

“Well, the tree of liberty is not [watered with] the blood of patriots, what’s happened is that there never been, if you want, if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” Biden continued. “The point is that there’s always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.”

Of course, these gun remarks completely counter the Democrat narrative of the incident at our Capitol on January 6th. As conservative commentator Dana Loesch pointed out “Wait, so a guy dressed like a Burning Man reject in a buffalo head and his motley crew … almost overthrew the entire government but you can’t own a semi-auto because the mighty government will nuke you into next week?” So, according to President Biden you need nukes and fighter jets to take on this government but unarmed people walking around taking pictures and speaking with Capitol PD officers were the greatest threat our government has ever faced?

Nukes? What leader tacitly, if not overtly, threatens his own people with nuclear weapons? This doesn't comport with the American values of freedom and governance of, by, and for the people does it?

Fighting words doctrine Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

In other words, fighting words constitute a type of punishable incitement when speakers intentionally incite a response of violence.

While the president’s remarks fall short of fighting words in a legal sense, they sure seem to open the door to escalation of violence and are morally reprehensible. For an administration trying to further restrict Second Amendment rights to bear arms in an effort to “curtail violence,” are these words an open invitation for the Chinese Communist Party or another hostile nuclear powered adversary, who potentially would be willing to supply, support or launch a nuclear attack at the behest of Soros-supported factions like Black Lives Matter, Antifa or other groups who have their own hostilities toward the United States? Unlikely, but why even open that door? The Biden Administration just released a National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. The strategy is narrowly tailored, but not specifically on addressing violence. It’s aimed directly at taking away fundamental constitutional rights by declaring them to be precursors to terrorist violence and criminalizing certain expressed dissenting points of view. Are President’s Biden’s words the very precursor to terrorist violence referenced in the written strategy? Are threatening “fighting words” a true call to arms placing citizens in a defensive posture? What is President Biden’s real position and that of his administration? How will law enforcement resources be impacted and utilized moving forward? Freedom shouldn’t hurt simply because we refuse to comply with and support convoluted thought and harmful bureaucratic ideologies.

Enemies from within are of great danger to our safety and freedoms. We must work against any and all threats to our inalienable rights as it pertains to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Our very futures and that of future generations are at stake during these critical times of evaluation and reevaluation. To the progressives, traditionalists and the many somewhere in between …

Where do you stand?

Joel E. Gordon is a former Field Training Officer with the Baltimore City Police Department and is a past Chief of Police for the city of Kingwood, West Virginia. He has also served as vice-chair of a multi-jurisdictional regional narcotics task force. An award winning journalist, he is author of the book Still Seeking Justice: One Officer's Story and founded the Facebook group Police Authors Seeking Justice. Look him up at stillseekingjustice.com