Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Untouchable criminal (Score 1) 265


"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."

Kinda like Obama when he killed an American citizen and then targeted his son? Or when we nuked Japan? Or firebombed Dresden? Doesn't sound like "hate speech" to me. Sounds like a demoralizing strategy for less restricted warfare. You know, warfare that actually works. War is ugly. Not that I support military intervention in the middle east but when they kill on American soil, retaliation is the only response. Being nice to them and giving them free room and board is not working in Germany, that's for sure.

“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees.”

An obvious joke. Besides, what do you think happened to the guy who threw a shoe at Bush? Not a wise thing to say but certainly no worse than things I've heard from folks like Nixon or even LBJ in the past. What about the Dem supporters actually punching people after a Trump rally and following them to their vehicles?

“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell ya.”

And you've never stated that you'd like to punch someone in the face? I don't know about you but there's plenty of people I'd LIKE to punch in the face, including Trump. Doesn't mean I'll actually do it.

“Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

Again, not a threat. Simply him expressing anger. There's plenty of people that I've thought needed their ass kicked.

Now, I'm certainly not voting for him but making him out to be Hitler is stupid. And I'm sure Hillary says MUCH worse behind closed doors away from the cameras. I'm certainly not voting for her corrupt ass either. The only sane choice in this election is Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. Both have more governing experience than Trump and HRC combined and have a much more sane outlook on where we need to be heading as a nation.

Comment Re:Untouchable criminal (Score 1) 265

Islam is a bit different because most Muslims don't act that way, or at least most of the ones living in the west. A few do, but the majority, like the majority of Christians, have rejected the violent parts of their religion's dogma. Nazism is primarily about hating and doing harm to others, it serves little other purpose.

Looking down on those who don't share your beliefs and subjugating them is definitely a core part of Islam. The majority of white supremacists aren't running around killing people either. People only "reject" such views as good PR. When things get rough for them they bubble back to the surface and are used as justification for all sorts of evil. And while western Muslims aren't killing Jews en masse, ask a random one how they feel about Jews or homosexuality.

Again, to hold violent opinions or display symbols associated with hatred is not a crime. And personally, I find crosses offensive, it's like me displaying an electric chair. Doesn't mean that I can go around forcing people to take them down.

To be clear though, we absolutely should take a hard line on the aspects of Islam that are incompatible with human rights and our system of law, and our social norms. Banning halal meat would be a good start.

Halal meat has nothing to do with human rights or our system of law in the US. It's a mean practice and people are welcome to speak out about it and refuse to offer it in their restaurants but ultimately, it's up to Muslims to reject the practice. Besides, it gives them good practice for slitting throats and/or beheading infidels.

Comment Re:Untouchable criminal (Score 1) 265

No, brandishing a firearm and waving it around is a crime.

Yes, but why is it a crime? It's not physically hurting anyone, just like adorning your house with Nazi imagery is not physically hurting anyone. It's because a reasonable person would see that behaviour as unreasonable, despite the lack of immediate physical harm.

Imagery is not an immediate threat. A weapon being waved around with the barrel pointing at people could actually result in harm, whether intentional or not.

Now if the Nazi wannabe was waving around a weapon and saying he was going to cleanse the town.... you might have a case. If he's just raving about how he thinks Hitler was awesome, Jews are vile and that "untermenschen" are worthy of extermination.... that's his right. Even if he's misguided, bigoted and stupid it's still not illegal. Just like moron baptists saying that gay people are disgusting and worthy of execution isn't illegal. It's stupid and they need to be called out for it. But it's their right to think that way. The same right that gives these morons the right to be assholes, gives gay folks the right to hold pride parades and for us to hold protests against police over-reach and government corruption.

Remember, not too long ago.... "reasonable people" believed homosexuality was amoral, disgusting and a crime. I don't give the views of "reasonable people" much merit. And the "social norms" argument is a crock of shit. I am not required to adhere to what the majority thinks is normal by any means.

Comment Re:Untouchable criminal (Score 1) 265

Maybe now you understand the problem with adorning your home with swastikas. Most reasonable people would interpret using Nazi imagery, associated with a group of ultra-violent bigots who murdered millions of people, as a fairly clear statement of hostile intent.

Also, using such logic would justify outlawing Islamic imagery because their holy book calls for murdering Jews. Or outlawing Christian imagery because their religion condones violence and stoning under several circumstances.

Comment Re:Untouchable criminal (Score 2) 265

That's for courts to decide. You could make the same argument about all sorts of things. Was it negligence or could no reasonable person have foreseen it? That was one of the earliest uses of it (Vaughan v. Menlove).

Without this standard, it would be impossible to prevent your neighbour playing loud music 24/7. They could argue that you are being overly sensitive and could just sleep through it like they do.

And if they argued that, they could be right. Your definition of loud could be quite different from theirs. That's why such laws in my area have stated decibel limits in residential areas during certain times of the day to avoid broad interpretation and selective enforcement. Some people are just obnoxious and report anyone playing music they can hear. Especially if it's a form of music they don't like. Anyone who doesn't see things their way is not a reasonable person.

Is it? Maybe they just like waving their gun around. They told you it's not loaded, and you can trust them, surely... Or are you saying that any reasonable person would interpret it as a threat of violence?

No, brandishing a firearm and waving it around is a crime. You don't even need to be all that reasonable to understand waving a firearm around or sticking it in someone's face is threatening. Loaded or not. Walking around with a weapon slung over your shoulder or holstered is not a direct threat and legal in many areas.

Maybe now you understand the problem with adorning your home with swastikas. Most reasonable people would interpret using Nazi imagery, associated with a group of ultra-violent bigots who murdered millions of people, as a fairly clear statement of hostile intent.

Not all Nazis were violent. Not all of them gassed jews. So no, swastika decorations by themselves don't demonstrate hostile intent. They just show how much of an asshole you are. And sympathizing with violent groups or displaying associated imagery is not a crime otherwise all the dumbass wannabe commies displaying Che Guevera or Mao t-shirts would have a problem. Committing a violent act or directly threatening violence IS a crime.

Comment Re:Untouchable criminal (Score 2) 265

You are confused. I'm not taking about just insulting people, that's fine. I'm taking about creating an atmosphere were a reasonable person would be justifiably afraid.

The problem is defining terms like "justifiably afraid" and "reasonable person" are almost impossible to do in a legal sense and such laws tend to incredibly broad and open to interpretation.

Some Christians believe they are "justifiably afraid" because their kids walk by liquor stores or a gay club on their way home from school. The KKK believes they are "justifiably afraid" of black protests. Some people think they are "justifiably afraid" because people can carry a holstered pistol without wearing a badge. And "reasonable person" in the eyes of most people means "people who think like me".

It wouldn't be acceptable to point a gun at someone's head without pulling the trigger. No physical harm done, but it's a clear threat and would justify a response.

That's a direct threat of violence, which is NOT acceptable. There's a difference between someone saying "You should be shot" and "I'm going to shoot you".

Comment Re:Untouchable criminal (Score 2) 265

That's not liberty. If you are a Jew, how can you enjoy your life, go freely about your business without fear if your neighbour's house is covered in swastikas?

Because assaulting and killing people is still considered a crime. Being offensive isn't.

Besides, you are being selective. Even in America you can't turn your back yard into a sewage processing plant without a permit, because it's understood that when people have to live close together they can't have the freedom to do absolutely anything they want.

That would actually be a public health risk and put the property of others at risk of being contaminated. Now if you live in a rural area, this would be less of an issue.

The EU does far more to protect individual freedom.

No, not at all. If you can be cited for offending people, speaking out against religion, being insulting or owning defensive weapons.... you are not free. You do not have an inherent right to be shielded from offensive ideas or to never have your feelings hurt.

Comment Re: Untouchable criminal (Score 2) 265

LOL Freedom of speech is outrageous because people can't control themselves and need the gubmint to make sure people don't listen to harmful ideas and bad thoughts or it might turn them into violent monsters LOL

I found the butthurt SJW! This is almost as fun as fishing. And yes, I sneer at those who invite tyranny into our lives.

I know which side I'm on. And it's certainly not yours.

Comment Re:Untouchable criminal (Score 3, Insightful) 265

Why? Because we don't jail people for thought crimes and believe everyone deserves a voice even if they're stupid? Since when is not liking people a crime?

NeoNazis are ridiculed quite mercilessly here in the US. You have the freedom to say whatever you want. And people have the freedom to call you an irrational douchebag and wish that someone would kick your ass.

It's called LIBERTY. We still have a little bit of that left in spite of the best efforts of "progressives" and SJW retards. If liberty scares you and you enjoy a nanny state that punishes people for being meanieheads, then enjoy the EU. A nanny state for your "protection" goes against the principles on which this country was founded. And nanny states are happy to turn on their own citizens eventually.

Comment Re: Mall shooting in Germany (Score 1) 193

Also realize the rate of gun deaths typically includes people shot in self defense protecting their life or a family member. This happens a LOT. That should not be included in the homicide rate. That's one of the reasons we have guns. When seconds count, cops are 45 minutes away.

And if you think the US govt is screwed up now? Wait until they think we're all unarmed and totally powerless. They may have tanks and drones but the thought of people getting shot still gives them pause.

Comment Re: Mall shooting in Germany (Score 1) 193

Not really, there's plenty that are civilized with high homicide rates. Unless your idea of civilized is the EU and noone else because you admire their brand of social tyranny. There's also plenty with high homicide rates with incredibly restrictive gun laws. I'd hardly call Russia uncivilized and they have more than twice the homicide rate and quite restrictive gun laws. It is only VERY recently that self-defense was considered a valid reason to have a gun at all in Russia.

There's also millions upon millions of unregistered, untracked and thus unknown weapons in the US. Good luck with a ban, especially in a state like mine which has purposely avoided tracking private sales or creating a state gun registration system. The whole reason? To thwart any confiscation efforts.

And violent crime in the US has been steadily declining for 50 years. It's dropped pretty dramatically since 1992. And gun ownership is up 140%. YOU might not like guns and are free not to buy any. I'm certainly not willing to give mine up however.

Comment Re: Mall shooting in Germany (Score 0) 193

Yep, because guns are legal. The homicide rate in general is quite similar to other developed countries. They just stab or bludgeon each other to death instead. Hell, England was considering banning knives with points. The only thing a gun does is level the playing field and take physical size and strength out of the equation and allow one to engage multiple attackers under favorable circumstances. So yeah, I'll be keeping my guns whether you like it or not. Even if a ban were successful, we can simply make our own. They aren't rocket science by any stretch of the imagination.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.