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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Hateful speech is not a crime. This is not the EU. You can be a NeoNazi and drape your house in swastikas if you want. It's only a hate crime once you start gassing people or telling other people to do so.
Yep, even though guns have been part of our society since the first colonists stepped foot off the boat. It's all because people like me value them. Nevermind that violent crime is lower than it's ever been in 25 years and has been steadily declining even though gun ownership rates have soared.
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.
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.
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.
And honestly I don't give a crap what people like you think. It's a right, not a privilege. Yep, guns are dangerous and that's the whole point. And in the end, my guns are staying right where they are no matter what BS you try to get passed. Don't like it? The EU is just across the pond.
I'm calling bullshit. There's no such thing as a "gun license" in most states. In my state, all it takes to get a gun is to not be a felon, be 21 or older, pass a phone-in background check and have a couple hundred bucks for the gun. There's no license. A permit is only required if you want to carry concealed in public which the state does on a "shall-issue" basis unless you have a record.
And you know what? It doesn't look like Afghanistan here at all.
And yeah, people who commit suicide and own a gun are more likely to use the gun than hang themselves, whodathunkit?!
And you know what? Our overall homicide rate per capita is no worse than most other civilized countries. Including Australia which has averaged 1 mass killing a year even though guns are almost impossible to get. And I mean real mass killing. Not the stupid term people have attached to 3 person multiple shootings. France just had 80 people mowed down with a truck. Much more effective than an AR-15 with it's weak rifle cartridge and semi-auto action.
Yes, we have more gun deaths.... BECAUSE GUNS ARE LEGAL. We do not really have many more HOMICIDES.
It's amazing how many butthurt 15-25 year olds can't come to grips with the fact that they've destroyed something great and attempt to mod truth as trolling.
Yep and even half of the text editors out there will need 750MB of dependencies and install 90% of the crap you installed slackware to get away from anyway. An application shouldn't require installing most of a bloated desktop environment just to function. At most they should require a small GUI widget library and do everything else with standard OS functions and functionality provided by standard X11 libraries/extensions.
Unless you just want to run 20 year old software written in proper UNIX fashion, there's no realistic way to avoid the insanity. The shitshow has also made portability between mainstream Linux distros to different UNIX variants a complete nightmare.
Bullshit, Linux 1.2 ran quite well on my 486DX4/100 and supported all hardware. FreeBSD 2.2.8 ran nice on my K6/233. Even with basic 3D support. FreeBSD 4 ran great on my Athlon/600 with Adaptec 2940 (with a even bigger pile of SCSI drives, a Bernoulli and an Exabyte tape drive), Radeon 9200, 3COM PCI NIC and various other goodies.
It really wasn't until purposely locked down 802.11 and mutant locked down 3D accelerators that we even NEEDED commercial backing. And it wasn't until commercial backing that people felt the need that a timesharing/server/developer/power-user OS needed to be palatable for millennial retards thus killing the appeal for most people who made it awesome to begin with. GNOME3, KDE4, SystemD..... all abominations and very un-unix-like. And..... it's still not the year of the linux desktop for grandma no matter how much you try to integrate the worst of Windows and MacOS into a bloated buggy shitshow.
All this work over decades to replicate what UNIX users didn't want.... and then Google slaps a Java stack with a crippled poke-and-drool UI on top of the Linux kernel over a few years and it's in everyone's pocket. And desktop Linux sucks more than it ever did. Even MS wanted a piece of the Android pie, their piece just capitulated however.
DVD Recorders have been around a decade. You can record live TV on a DVD just as easily as you can with a VCR. In fact, I bought a combo VCR and DVD-RW for my father-in-law right around 2005.
True, but to get those inventor's expensive pie-in-the-sky ideas funded, it often requires fear to get people to throw gigabucks at the project for facilities, R&D, staff and materials.
Sadly, expensive ways of killing each other get us very cool tech and achieve things that otherwise we'd never spend the money on. Like going to the moon. Or advances in modern computing.
So no, I'm not tired of it. Nobody has the balls to push the button anyway.
2.) Not clamping down enough on abuse of H1B visas when plenty of Americans were qualified for those jobs.
3.) Not doing anything to stop rabid outsourcing of both white and blue collar jobs to third world shitholes with no employee protections or decent standard of living. And when those countries start benefiting and wanting a bigger piece of the pie, they pack up and find another shithole.
The lower-middle and middle class cannot survive as a "services" economy or one based on Imaginary Property holdings. I shouldn't be stuck in a tail-spin race to the bottom with $10/hr Indians on another continent. While this isn't directly because of his policies he should have worked toward fixing these issues. Globalization is destructive. It makes a few at the top richer but screws people with marketable job skills in various trades the most.
I shouldn't be punished and driven toward minimum wage because I chose an ethical tech career over becoming a sleazy MBA.
This is certainly a good election to vote Libertarian as well. They are polling in the double digits. Personally, I feel that seeing a third party rise to be a major party is more important than choosing between two obvious tyrants.
And this time, the Libertarians have 2 popular two-term governors on the ticket. Both with more experience actually governing than either Trump or Hillary. And both are far more likely to leave you the hell alone.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Hateful speech is not a crime. This is not the EU. You can be a NeoNazi and drape your house in swastikas if you want. It's only a hate crime once you start gassing people or telling other people to do so.
Yep, even though guns have been part of our society since the first colonists stepped foot off the boat. It's all because people like me value them. Nevermind that violent crime is lower than it's ever been in 25 years and has been steadily declining even though gun ownership rates have soared.
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.
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.
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.
And honestly I don't give a crap what people like you think. It's a right, not a privilege. Yep, guns are dangerous and that's the whole point. And in the end, my guns are staying right where they are no matter what BS you try to get passed. Don't like it? The EU is just across the pond.
I'm calling bullshit. There's no such thing as a "gun license" in most states. In my state, all it takes to get a gun is to not be a felon, be 21 or older, pass a phone-in background check and have a couple hundred bucks for the gun. There's no license. A permit is only required if you want to carry concealed in public which the state does on a "shall-issue" basis unless you have a record.
And you know what? It doesn't look like Afghanistan here at all.
And yeah, people who commit suicide and own a gun are more likely to use the gun than hang themselves, whodathunkit?!
And you know what? Our overall homicide rate per capita is no worse than most other civilized countries. Including Australia which has averaged 1 mass killing a year even though guns are almost impossible to get. And I mean real mass killing. Not the stupid term people have attached to 3 person multiple shootings. France just had 80 people mowed down with a truck. Much more effective than an AR-15 with it's weak rifle cartridge and semi-auto action.
Yes, we have more gun deaths.... BECAUSE GUNS ARE LEGAL. We do not really have many more HOMICIDES.
It's amazing how many butthurt 15-25 year olds can't come to grips with the fact that they've destroyed something great and attempt to mod truth as trolling.
Yep and even half of the text editors out there will need 750MB of dependencies and install 90% of the crap you installed slackware to get away from anyway. An application shouldn't require installing most of a bloated desktop environment just to function. At most they should require a small GUI widget library and do everything else with standard OS functions and functionality provided by standard X11 libraries/extensions.
Unless you just want to run 20 year old software written in proper UNIX fashion, there's no realistic way to avoid the insanity. The shitshow has also made portability between mainstream Linux distros to different UNIX variants a complete nightmare.
Bullshit, Linux 1.2 ran quite well on my 486DX4/100 and supported all hardware. FreeBSD 2.2.8 ran nice on my K6/233. Even with basic 3D support. FreeBSD 4 ran great on my Athlon/600 with Adaptec 2940 (with a even bigger pile of SCSI drives, a Bernoulli and an Exabyte tape drive), Radeon 9200, 3COM PCI NIC and various other goodies.
It really wasn't until purposely locked down 802.11 and mutant locked down 3D accelerators that we even NEEDED commercial backing. And it wasn't until commercial backing that people felt the need that a timesharing/server/developer/power-user OS needed to be palatable for millennial retards thus killing the appeal for most people who made it awesome to begin with. GNOME3, KDE4, SystemD..... all abominations and very un-unix-like. And..... it's still not the year of the linux desktop for grandma no matter how much you try to integrate the worst of Windows and MacOS into a bloated buggy shitshow.
All this work over decades to replicate what UNIX users didn't want.... and then Google slaps a Java stack with a crippled poke-and-drool UI on top of the Linux kernel over a few years and it's in everyone's pocket. And desktop Linux sucks more than it ever did. Even MS wanted a piece of the Android pie, their piece just capitulated however.
I don't know. CyanogenMod was actually doing pretty well before MS came along. Seems more like "Oprah's" money poisoned the well.
And spinning hard disks never fail right?
DVD Recorders have been around a decade. You can record live TV on a DVD just as easily as you can with a VCR. In fact, I bought a combo VCR and DVD-RW for my father-in-law right around 2005.
True, but to get those inventor's expensive pie-in-the-sky ideas funded, it often requires fear to get people to throw gigabucks at the project for facilities, R&D, staff and materials.
Sadly, expensive ways of killing each other get us very cool tech and achieve things that otherwise we'd never spend the money on. Like going to the moon. Or advances in modern computing.
So no, I'm not tired of it. Nobody has the balls to push the button anyway.
You know Russia exports a shit-ton of oil right? They have their own, no need to buy it.
2.) Not clamping down enough on abuse of H1B visas when plenty of Americans were qualified for those jobs.
3.) Not doing anything to stop rabid outsourcing of both white and blue collar jobs to third world shitholes with no employee protections or decent standard of living. And when those countries start benefiting and wanting a bigger piece of the pie, they pack up and find another shithole.
The lower-middle and middle class cannot survive as a "services" economy or one based on Imaginary Property holdings. I shouldn't be stuck in a tail-spin race to the bottom with $10/hr Indians on another continent. While this isn't directly because of his policies he should have worked toward fixing these issues. Globalization is destructive. It makes a few at the top richer but screws people with marketable job skills in various trades the most.
I shouldn't be punished and driven toward minimum wage because I chose an ethical tech career over becoming a sleazy MBA.
This is certainly a good election to vote Libertarian as well. They are polling in the double digits. Personally, I feel that seeing a third party rise to be a major party is more important than choosing between two obvious tyrants.
And this time, the Libertarians have 2 popular two-term governors on the ticket. Both with more experience actually governing than either Trump or Hillary. And both are far more likely to leave you the hell alone.