He made some other drastic statements besides what OP mentions which might lead this person not to be able to exercise his 2nd amendment rights. An example is he will shoot anyone who comes to get his guns (paraphrase)
I am not condoning his statement, nor recommending any harm to anyone for any reason.
What I will say is what was the original intent of the 2A? We have tons and tons of people in this forum who say it is to stand against government tyranny. Well maybe for this singular individual we have reached the point that he feels that way. He has a 1st Amendment right to say what he wishes and what he said is not significantly different from what the founding fathers told the King in the Declaration of Independence. Do we somehow not realize that those who fought in the revolutionary war did bear arms against the government of the colonies? Our forefathers must have said similar things....
We are quick to criticize those that have had enough of whatever tyranny from whomever and yet what else does the 2A stand for? Did not many of the founders express that the 2A was specifically to guard against such things and yet when someone expresses this exact thing we condemn it. I'm not saying I agree with this gentlemen, but I agree that he has the right to have his opinion and be vocal so long as it remains speech.
How can we expect to have a productive dialog with our friends and neighbors when they express themselves and we immediately punish them and discredit them as being crazy? We talk about wanting to stop people from shooting up this or that and yet we give no creditability to the anger that drives human beings. Would we not be better served to hear his anger and as a community work with him to reassure him that no matter the rhetoric, its just talk... If whatever passes into something unconstitutional, it will be defeated in the public, in the courts and in the elections. We should not condone threats but we should allow the dialog and understand we are not alone, we are a community of law abiding citizens and we can help each other through these times.
I am not arguing the reality of what he said or the politics of what he said. What I am saying is I believe he has a constitutional right to say what he said and that what he said was protected free speech... (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, just my opinion)
In my opinion so long as this remains a exercise in free speech and nothing else, then he should be able to fully express himself without the retribution of loosing his CHL permit. It would be in my mind one thing if he said a specific persons name or a specific group of individuals but too make a mass statement in my mind is an expression of frustration and anger but not actual intent.
At all times we are bound to remain law abiding citizens but we must respect the rights of others to disagree with us or even feel more strongly about issues than we may. If we are to be moral men and women we must be allowed to say things are right or wrong and even express extreme dissatisfaction. If we want to stop violence then we need to hear each other as a community and reassure each other that we are a community and that we have lawful constructive ways to resolve these things. We can stop a lot of violence if we can just be silent enough to hear each other...