User Panel
Quoted:
Is this not similar to the prosecution of individuals that share child pornography? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
It would be great if we could say we don't have to worry about such blatant communism in this country but I vividly remember The Obama immediately arresting and throwing in jail the guy who made the video about Muhammad that was fake blamed for the murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2011. A bunch of terrorists in a country we were throwing support to raid our embassy, kill the Ambassador and 3 other American servicemen and the only person to pay a price was a completely innocent YouTuber here in the USA. To this day NO ONE has been brought to justice (that I know of) for Benghazi. Especially the evil America hating communist bitch Hitlery. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
NZ has a "Chief Censor". You want Orwellian; read what their chief censor has said about prohibiting the possession of the shooter's manifesto. Key quote below (punchline in bold): So, war IS peace... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Orwellian You want Orwellian; read what their chief censor has said about prohibiting the possession of the shooter's manifesto. Key quote below (punchline in bold): Those who have the publication for legitimate purposes, such as reporters, researchers and academics to analyse and educate can apply for an exception.
To those people Mr Shanks (chief censor) would say: "Destroy and delete copies that they currently hold, but to apply to us immediately for an exemption that will allow exactly those sorts of individuals who have a right to have access to this publication and have a genuine public interest in reviewing and assessing it." For how long the copies can be held will be decided on a case by case basis. He said those who were upset about the document being classified as objectionable could appeal the decision. "We live in a free society." |
|
|
Quoted:
China has directly invested in candidates in both major political parties. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
Well they certainly found the most unsympathetic evil peckerhead they could to prosecute over this stupid law. View Quote Pretty brilliant on the part of the kiwis. Diabolical in fact. |
|
Quoted:
No 1st amendment in NZ would be my guess View Quote Think about it... you can’t have or distribute child pornography even if you had had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. I don’t think anybody objects to the complete prohibition of child pornography. Yet everyone is losing their collective minds at the thought of a “free society” restricting a mass shooting video. At the core legal justifications, is either really that different? Interesting thought experiment, I think. |
|
Even more egregious to me, this video was not "deemed illegal to share" until AFTER it had been shared by these people in most cases.
|
|
|
Quoted:
The article says another 88 was jailed. Sounds like they incarcerate the white supremacists who share the video but "only" arrest other people and let them out on bail if they share the video. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
John Mark (Mark Says) has a great video exploring the NZ shooter. His point is he accomplished what he was after. Leading us closer to CW2.
|
|
|
Quoted:
NZ is 74% White European. You can swing a cat and hit a White Dude in any direction. NZ is Whiter than the United States. Also shows that the Anglophone Speaking World isn't exactly freedom loving. Look at how Authoritarian New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the UK are. No freedom of speech, no right to bear arms, no right to privacy, and an overbearing oligarchy of Labour Parties pushing Fabian Socialism. The Kiwis have over a century of history electing Socialists into power. View Quote So... TC |
|
Quoted:
Should we prosecute people who share automobile crash videos, when they are the result of illegal acts? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well they certainly found the most unsympathetic evil peckerhead they could to prosecute over this stupid law. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this not similar to the prosecution of individuals that share child pornography? |
|
|
Quoted:
I think people that distribute child porn should be punished severely. Now I have cognitive dissonance over whether this guy should be punished. If you're intellectually honest, the actions are the same. The individuals in question are sharing video of a heinous crime. View Quote It's even more apparent in the instance of possession of his rambling ass "manifesto". It's one thing to ban something because it's inherently dangerous-say, for example, instructions on how to make IEDs. It's another thing to make possession of a document illegal because you don't like what it says or because it's mean to someone. It's a very, very slippery slope down to the easy decision by the government that anything that disagrees with something the government decides is "Good and Right", say unlimited immigration of a protected class, and hate speech that carries jail time or other penalties. |
|
|
Quoted:
Although does the United State’s 1st amendment really protect against possessing and distributing media (not otherwise protected under proprietary or classified regulations) which depicts violent crime perpetrated against innocent victims? Think about it... you can’t have or distribute child pornography even if you had had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. I don’t think anybody objects to the complete prohibition of child pornography. Yet everyone is losing their collective minds at the thought of a “free society” restricting a mass shooting video. At the core legal justifications, is either really that different? Interesting thought experiment, I think. View Quote Distribution of adult porn isn’t illegal, even if it’s taken surreptitiously or against the will of the victim. The initial filming/distributing party can face charges or lawsuits (revenge porn, for example), but mere possession or distribution by third parties is a non-issue. The difference is that they’re adults, not children. The thought is that adults are better able to handle the repercussions and fallout from such an act, whereas children aren’t as able. Crimes against children are a VERY specific set prescribed by law, and a carve-out in our traditional norms regarding free speech. Crimes against adults, regardless of how heinous they are, aren’t treated the same way. In that respect, and the fact that the dead victims can’t be re-victimized again, things like the NZ shooting video and the manifesto aren’t even in the same ballpark as child porn. They’re not analogous, and if we start treating them as such, we start to tread further into very serious territory. |
|
|
Quoted:
Whites are only like 10% of the global population and that number is getting smaller everyday. You best start believing in genocide , you're in one . View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep. |
|
Quoted:
Although does the United State’s 1st amendment really protect against possessing and distributing media (not otherwise protected under proprietary or classified regulations) which depicts violent crime perpetrated against innocent victims? Think about it... you can’t have or distribute child pornography even if you had had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. I don’t think anybody objects to the complete prohibition of child pornography. Yet everyone is losing their collective minds at the thought of a “free society” restricting a mass shooting video. At the core legal justifications, is either really that different? Interesting thought experiment, I think. View Quote To compare it to child porn is a stretch. Child porn laws/prosecution are set up in such a way that the law writers are viewing the production of such material as a business not as individual acts. If the customers/middlemen are eliminated the business itself is soon to follow, that is intended purpose of criminalizing the possession and distribution of that material imo. What New Zealand government is doing is wrong, it is the very definition of tyranny. They were wrong when they imported a culture and religious cult that is not compatible or tolerant of anyone else, they were wrong when they said they would prosecute anyone who viewed or shared the video, they were wrong when they demanded everyone's weapons. They were wrong when they intentionally hid and threatened anyone from viewing his manuscript which stated he hoped his act did exactly what the New Zealand government is doing. I hope the Kiwis say no more but thats not the impression I get. |
|
|
And folks wonder why every right in the Bill of Rights is so important.
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
China has a huge presence and influence in Australia as well- some of the Aussies I know believe that some of their politicians are bought and paid for. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, they are going full China. Of course the same could be said for any commonwealth nation and the motherland the U.K.. |
|
View Quote "One year" Traveled through the room like moonlight through the darkness Oh it's heartless How could I beat two felonies then turn around and lose like this? My lawayer saying "stay calm" people saying "pray for'em" They lockin my black ass up like Akon |
|
|
|
So why don’t we have someone here who’s sole job it is to create fake twitter accounts and constantly post it on the National Police twitter account?
|
|
|
I take it you haven't watched the video.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Yes I've watched the video. Welcome to the real world. Maybe you should spend less time playing video games. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: I take it you haven't watched the video. I was probably playing video games and didn't catch it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/new-zealand-shooting-man-abdul-aziz-who-chased-new-zealand-mosque-shooter-hailed-as-a-hero/ |
|
Quoted: Maybe you can tell me the minute and second of the video where the shooter is confronted and attacked with a shotgun by a bystander. I was probably playing video games and didn't catch it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/new-zealand-shooting-man-abdul-aziz-who-chased-new-zealand-mosque-shooter-hailed-as-a-hero/ View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the incident before asking me for a timestamp of an incident that occurs after the video feed was cut. View Quote You are wrong and confrontational about something so easily shown false. |
|
Quoted:
Maybe you can tell me the minute and second of the video where the shooter is confronted and attacked with a shotgun by a bystander. I was probably playing video games and didn't catch it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/new-zealand-shooting-man-abdul-aziz-who-chased-new-zealand-mosque-shooter-hailed-as-a-hero/ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I take it you haven't watched the video. I was probably playing video games and didn't catch it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/new-zealand-shooting-man-abdul-aziz-who-chased-new-zealand-mosque-shooter-hailed-as-a-hero/ The video cuts off in the middle of traffic, after all, and we never see what occurs at the other location(s). Presumably that was how long it took Facebook to pull the plug on the livestream...or his connection just took a dump on him. Pulling the manifesto is arguably more meaningful than the video..because they've followed his predictions to a T, and acted precisely in accordance with his publicly stated desires and reasons for committing murder; it could effectively be argued that the state is acting as an accomplice to terrorism after the fact. And hell, he probably will point that out as well during the trial. Which I fully expect will be completely censored, assuming he doesn't suffer a sudden acute myocardial infarction in the meantime. |
|
Quoted:
The article says another 88 was jailed. Sounds like they incarcerate the white supremacists who share the video but "only" arrest other people and let them out on bail if they share the video. View Quote Txl |
|
|
Quoted: Presumably it occurred at some point after the shooter arrived at his second target location. The video cuts off in the middle of traffic, after all, and we never see what occurs at the other location(s). Presumably that was how long it took Facebook to pull the plug on the livestream...or his connection just took a dump on him. Pulling the manifesto is arguably more meaningful than the video..because they've followed his predictions to a T, and acted precisely in accordance with his publicly stated desires and reasons for committing murder; it could effectively be argued that the state is acting as an accomplice to terrorism after the fact. And hell, he probably will point that out as well during the trial. Which I fully expect will be completely censored, assuming he doesn't suffer a sudden acute myocardial infarction in the meantime. View Quote He completed the second shooting from his car and drove off. He was only confronted by one guy, at the first mosque, and shot him a few times in the chest. Second mosque was unmolested and he quit when he felt like it, just like the first one. |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen O'Driscoll. . . . New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern View Quote |
|
Quoted:
The entirety of the Anglophone world minus the US doesn't have a freedom of speech clause. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
The entirety of the Anglophone world minus the US doesn't have a freedom of speech clause. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament; The US had the advantage of the Revolution, however in addition there is the fact we were largely Calvanist in origin. The other Anglo countries primarly Church of England, so they had less inherent concern about freedom of speech or religion. |
|
Quoted:
The difference is that in the case of Kiddie porn, it's an entire class of material. In the case of the Mosque shooter, it's a single video. There's an enormous amount of difference there. It's even more apparent in the instance of possession of his rambling ass "manifesto". It's one thing to ban something because it's inherently dangerous-say, for example, instructions on how to make IEDs. It's another thing to make possession of a document illegal because you don't like what it says or because it's mean to someone. It's a very, very slippery slope down to the easy decision by the government that anything that disagrees with something the government decides is "Good and Right", say unlimited immigration of a protected class, and hate speech that carries jail time or other penalties. View Quote |
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.