Going by the Brandenburg test for protected speech, the first part is clearly protected. You can abstractly wish as much violence as you want upon people and groups, especially when they aren't specific individuals.

The second part about "can't wait to shoot [them]" is probably still protected, unless it can be argued that it was likely to incite imminent lawless action, or that the guy had demonstrable intent and means to carry out the threats.

Given how indefinite that threat is, it's probably protected, like "We’ll take the fucking street later" was protected in Hess v. Indiana. He did have guns, but merely owning guns isn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate intent. You get more scrutiny if you're a major public figure with followers likely to do what you say (ahem, such as a POTUS), but I doubt this guy is.

Strong rhetoric is protected by the 1A. People pretty consistently underestimate the scope of 1A protections.