This seems like a non-statement. It's obvious that violence isn't protected under freedom of speech. There are no arguments on that point.
> If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.
Why even add "white supremacists" to that statement? It would be true of any group. You could replace "white supremacists" with "Underpants Gnomes" and this would still be true.
Crack some skulls
???
Profit!
> The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.
Does "shield" in this case refer to the protesters who were resisting the Unite the Right rally?
> If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.
Why even add "white supremacists" to that statement? It would be true of any group. You could replace "white supremacists" with "Underpants Gnomes" and this would still be true.
Crack some skulls
???
Profit!
> The First Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.
Does "shield" in this case refer to the protesters who were resisting the Unite the Right rally?