HeavyInk.com - Reconsider Using Them (See Link)

400yrs · Post by **400yrs** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:05 pm

I've bought from heavyink.com before. However, after this from the *SQUEE*-bag president, I won't be using them anymore.

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/01/1 ... -corcoran/

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:22 pm

Wow, that guy has some serious mental issues.

sanman · Post by **sanman** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:18 pm

IMJ · Post by **IMJ** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:49 pm

It'll be a real testament to the comic collecting community if this guy is begging for business by the end of next week. Seriously.

comicsyte95 · Post by **comicsyte95** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:51 pm

The guy is definetly a nutjob and needs to be on some medication.

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:35 pm

Gail Simone wrote:May you grow a soul someday, because you desperately are in need of one.

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:49 pm

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... -dealer-/1

Guns seized after Mass. man suggests targeting politicians

Police have seized a Boston-area comic book dealer's arsenal and suspended his gun license over a blog post that suggested other members of Congress and their aides should be targeted in the wake of the shooting of Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

In a post titled "1 down, 534 to go," Travis Corcoran of Arlington, Mass., wrote: "It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot 'indiscriminately'. Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone." The blog, TJICistan, is no longer accessible, but affiliates have emerged.

"We certainly take this as a credible threat, and credible until we prove otherwise," said Arlington Police Capt. Robert Bongiorno. Officers confiscated a "large amount" of weapons and ammunition, he said, without offering specifics. A source told WBZ-TV 11 guns were taken.

Corcoran, 39, who runs the online comic site HeavyInk and calls himself an "anarcho-capitalist," has not been arrested or charged with any crime. Local and federal authorities are investigating.

After his post generated traffic and attention, he soft-pedaled his braggadocio in an interview with The Arlington Advocate, saying at one point, "Can you reform by shooting politicians? "I don't think you can."

But in a Twitter exchange recounted by the liberal blog ThinkProgress, Corcoran explains his anti-government philosophy and why and when political assassination may be legitimate.

iggy101us · Post by **iggy101us** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:35 am

Great job on the police being pro-active in dealing with this nutjob.

dave · Post by **dave** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 7:57 am

I heard the Morning Glories guy asked that they stop carrying his book cause homeboy is so whacked.

greg · Post by **greg** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:30 am

This is an interesting dilemma.

If a financially successful nutjob is given a platform to opine about what crimes should be justified,
his own selfishness will usually limit his own involvement in those crimes because it
would mean the end of his financial success.

This same nutjob with nothing left to lose, when it has all been taken away from him because of things he's said,
now has nothing holding him back from the crimes he believed were justified in the first place.

Chiclo · Post by **Chiclo** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:03 am

iggy101us wrote:Great job on the police being pro-active in dealing with this nutjob.

I don't know - if we don't stand for this nutjob and the idiocy of which he only speaks, who will they come for next? I am a firearms salesman and prominent local Libertarian - it isn't that big of a leap that they'd go from people like him to people like me.

Liberty is hard. Freedom of speech is hard. This is one of those times where insuring the freedom of speech of others is necessary in order to keep your own freedom of speech.

Do what you will with your own money. I would not buy from this man nor would I suggest anybody do so. This isn't a matter where the police should involve themselves. No crime has been committed. I am sure I have just as much guns and ammo as he has. I have stood and shook hands with congressmen, senators and nationally prominent politicians while carrying a firearm in my pocket.

That is a picture of me shaking hands (or just standing next to in the picture) with Karl Rove, "the Architect" of the Bush administration. Guess what - right under my right hand in my pants pocket is a Kel-Tec P32. And you know what? Nobody was hurt. Just to the right of the picture was my Republican opponent in the Congressional race, the now-Congressman "Four" Price. He wasn't hurt either.

This man from Heavy Ink has made his bed, let him lie in it. Let his business collapse around him as the invisible hand may judge him. But he has committed no crime.

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:07 am

I 100% agree with Chiclo.

iggy101us · Post by **iggy101us** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:15 am

I can see your point, Chiclo.

dbostejano · Post by **dbostejano** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:17 am

Was there some profiling going on here?

IMJ · Post by **IMJ** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:55 am

Chiclo wrote:Guess what - right under my right hand in my pants pocket is a Kel-Tec P32. And you know what? Nobody was hurt.

You have a carry and conceal permit? This sort of post really puts in perspective how many people could literally just walk around with guns and you'd never know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to bear arms (absolutely), but just walking around with your firearm simply because you can is the kind of nonsense that Europeans trivialize U.S. culture for all the time.

One of my best friends is a bit of a gun nut and while he's a completely responsible owner, the obsession for firearms for a lot of people goes well beyond the right to own a gun for protection of your land and sovereignty (which is what the point of constitutional gun laws were).

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:57 am

My take on this is that I strongly disagree with the man, but he has a right to his opinion. However, he is advocating violence. Having the right to an opinion is one thing. When that opinion is expressed in a way that calls for violence, then a line has been crossed. The line is not that he holds the opinion, but that he is calling for damage to be done.

You do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre and you do not have the right to call for violence on others. That said, I don't think he needs to be put out of business because he holds an idea. He needs to be put out of buisness because he is vocalizing violent behaviors. He is calling for murder. If he had said "I hold no sympathy for anyone except the shooter", that would be one thing, because he would skirt the call for violence, but saying "1 down" crosses the line, as does his "Take better aim", because of many factors, not the least of which is the way he devalues the right of another to live, regardless of agreeing with their beliefs.

Some will try to turn this around and say "Aren't you doing the same? what about his right to live?" I'm not calling for his head on a plate, but I do believe that nobody has a right to call for the murder of another person and I believe that actions and words have consequence. I believe that in a free country, you have a right to make up your mind who you want to support and who you don't. I don't buy from online shops like his and for certain, I will never be doing business with him in the future. I believe a boycott is well within rights. If somebody else wants to continue to buy from him, that is their choice. It just won't be mine. I have my reasons. Unlike the owner of this store, I'm not going to call for your murder because I don't agree with you.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:51 am

IMJ wrote:
Chiclo wrote:Guess what - right under my right hand in my pants pocket is a Kel-Tec P32. And you know what? Nobody was hurt.
You have a carry and conceal permit? This sort of post really puts in perspective how many people could literally just walk around with guns and you'd never know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to bear arms (absolutely), but just walking around with your firearm simply because you can is the kind of nonsense that Europeans trivialize U.S. culture for all the time.

One of my best friends is a bit of a gun nut and while he's a completely responsible owner, the obsession for firearms for a lot of people goes well beyond the right to own a gun for protection of your land and sovereignty (which is what the point of constitutional gun laws were).

They just recently passed a law in Iowa that now allows people to carry guns concealed or unconcealed. I think all you need to do is take some sort of gun safety course (unless you were in the military, then you can bypass that).

Heath · Post by **Heath** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:06 am

IMJ wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to bear arms (absolutely), but just walking around with your firearm simply because you can is the kind of nonsense that Europeans trivialize U.S. culture for all the time.

It really doesn't bother me that Europeans trivialize U.S. culture...

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:09 am

I find it interesting that this became a gun issue in this thread, when what I took from it was that 400 was repulsed by the guy having supported the shootings and, indeed, calling for more violence. This is not a "gun" issue, to me. This is a "you don't call for violence" issue. It is about CIVIL discourse. Maybe we've truly lost that in this bitterly angry political climate, but we need to remember...

Just because your team won the big game last Sunday, doesn't mean Palin sucks or Obama is a secret Muslim.

The point being, let's stay on topic, folks.

chisumwomack · Post by **chisumwomack** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:28 am

xodacia81 wrote:My take on this is that I strongly disagree with the man, but he has a right to his opinion. However, he is advocating violence. Having the right to an opinion is one thing. When that opinion is expressed in a way that calls for violence, then a line has been crossed. The line is not that he holds the opinion, but that he is calling for damage to be done.

You do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre and you do not have the right to call for violence on others. That said, I don't think he needs to be put out of business because he holds an idea. He needs to be put out of buisness because he is vocalizing violent behaviors. He is calling for murder. If he had said "I hold no sympathy for anyone except the shooter", that would be one thing, because he would skirt the call for violence, but saying "1 down" crosses the line, as does his "Take better aim", because of many factors, not the least of which is the way he devalues the right of another to live, regardless of agreeing with their beliefs.

Some will try to turn this around and say "Aren't you doing the same? what about his right to live?" I'm not calling for his head on a plate, but I do believe that nobody has a right to call for the murder of another person and I believe that actions and words have consequence. I believe that in a free country, you have a right to make up your mind who you want to support and who you don't. I don't buy from online shops like his and for certain, I will never be doing business with him in the future. I believe a boycott is well within rights. If somebody else wants to continue to buy from him, that is their choice. It just won't be mine. I have my reasons. Unlike the owner of this store, I'm not going to call for your murder because I don't agree with you.

Advocating, yes, inciting, no. There is a difference. I'm not a fan of thought-policing or suppressing the right to free speech. This guy is an idiot, and that is what will do him in. Enough people will quit giving him business. But having the police involved is over the line.

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:41 am

chisumwomack wrote:
xodacia81 wrote:My take on this is that I strongly disagree with the man, but he has a right to his opinion. However, he is advocating violence. Having the right to an opinion is one thing. When that opinion is expressed in a way that calls for violence, then a line has been crossed. The line is not that he holds the opinion, but that he is calling for damage to be done.

You do not have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre and you do not have the right to call for violence on others. That said, I don't think he needs to be put out of business because he holds an idea. He needs to be put out of buisness because he is vocalizing violent behaviors. He is calling for murder. If he had said "I hold no sympathy for anyone except the shooter", that would be one thing, because he would skirt the call for violence, but saying "1 down" crosses the line, as does his "Take better aim", because of many factors, not the least of which is the way he devalues the right of another to live, regardless of agreeing with their beliefs.

Some will try to turn this around and say "Aren't you doing the same? what about his right to live?" I'm not calling for his head on a plate, but I do believe that nobody has a right to call for the murder of another person and I believe that actions and words have consequence. I believe that in a free country, you have a right to make up your mind who you want to support and who you don't. I don't buy from online shops like his and for certain, I will never be doing business with him in the future. I believe a boycott is well within rights. If somebody else wants to continue to buy from him, that is their choice. It just won't be mine. I have my reasons. Unlike the owner of this store, I'm not going to call for your murder because I don't agree with you.
Advocating, yes, inciting, no. There is a difference. I'm not a fan of thought-policing or suppressing the right to free speech. This guy is an idiot, and that is what will do him in. Enough people will quit giving him business. But having the police involved is over the line.

That is just the point. "Free Speech" is and always has, only extended so far. Advocating/inciting are so interconnected that there is a reason why people keep watch on interest groups. Advocating is a call for action, which if it happens, becomes inciting. You say you don't want thought police and that is NOT what is stated.

The argument has been said that Freedom of Speech means freedom from responsibility. Apply it to another time and place. Is Hitler free from advocating in the 1920's? Is he free from inciting in the 1930's and 40's? Just something to think about.

Chiclo · Post by **Chiclo** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:27 pm

IMJ wrote:
Chiclo wrote:Guess what - right under my right hand in my pants pocket is a Kel-Tec P32. And you know what? Nobody was hurt.
You have a carry and conceal permit? This sort of post really puts in perspective how many people could literally just walk around with guns and you'd never know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to bear arms (absolutely), but just walking around with your firearm simply because you can is the kind of nonsense that Europeans trivialize U.S. culture for all the time.

One of my best friends is a bit of a gun nut and while he's a completely responsible owner, the obsession for firearms for a lot of people goes well beyond the right to own a gun for protection of your land and sovereignty (which is what the point of constitutional gun laws were).

Yes, I have a CHL.

Frankly, I don't think I am doing it right unless the Europeans disapprove of what I am doing. Except for Sarkozy - that guy has his head on straight. May the French lead Europe!

Knightt · Post by **Knightt** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:32 pm

Chiclo wrote:Liberty is hard. Freedom of speech is hard.

Knightt is hard.

Chiclo · Post by **Chiclo** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:41 pm

Knightt wrote:
Chiclo wrote:Liberty is hard. Freedom of speech is hard.
Knightt is hard.

Liberty goes longer than 45 seconds. Liberty goes all night long.

Knightt · Post by **Knightt** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:07 pm

xodacia81 wrote:However, he is advocating violence.

I have advocated violence and performed the same in over 20 years of active duty military service. I have no problem doing it again and yes, I carry a concealed weapon, but I have the mental capacity to control myself. Even if I have an idea of who should exit the planet... you don't see me walking around just plugging jackwagons because I can.

But, if I were in a position where I needed the patronage of others to sustain my business therefore providing me with the means to support myself... I would keep my crazy mouth shut. Even if that were not the situation, I would not go off spouting crazy.