never mind

[XMan]

So BoberFett, was your post directed toward me?

I'm not Jewish, but the Nazis killed many Gypsys as well in their death camps, and my father's side of the family is descended from Romanian Gypsy blood. Many of the people on our family tree died in various camps.

I believe in freedom of speech, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, whether the person in question is a Republican, Democrat, Nazi, Black Panther, or member of the KKK. Advocating the heinous murder of millions of innocent people does not fall under free speech in my book.

Stark - I have no beef with Republicans (I am one) or the NRA. For you to lump Nazis together with the them, however, is wrong, as is your disdain for "gun nuts." Many of the weapons demonstrated were from various movies; we saw the M60 from Rambo, the GE Minigun from The Matrix and Terminator 2, etc. The vast vast majority (at least 99%) of the guns on sale were hunting rifles and shotguns. I myself looked for a rifle to use for elk hunting.

 

[DesignDawg]

<< I believe in freedom of speech, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, whether the person in question is a Republican, Democrat, Nazi, Black Panther, or member of the KKK. Advocating the heinous murder of millions of innocent people does not fall under free speech in my book. >>



Well, then, simply put, YOU'RE WRONG. Trust me, we don't want to start abridging free speech because it is offensive.

Ricky
DesignDawg

 

[DesignDawg]

--Oh, not to mention this: Advocating the murder of millions is an abuse of free speech, but advocating the murder of a few people at a gun show (by justifying your &quot;urge to commit murder today&quot; on AT Forums) is right? Why? Is it only because of the numbers involved? Or is it motive? In any case, it's clear that it's only right for YOU to think that way. So it becomes PAINFULLY clear now that you only want the rights of OTHERS abridged, and not your own. It doesn't work that way.

Ricky
DesignDawg

 

[XMan]

There's a difference between having a desire to kill someone, and cheering on an actual atrocity.

Unlike this fellow's idols, I committed no crime.

Since this guy was protected by free speech, does the fact that he was ejected from the even mean that his civil rights were abused? Maybe he should sue the government or something.

Free speech is not a blank check to spout off anything you want. Free speech does not mean you can read the dialogue to a porno movie to a room full of kindergartners. Do you think free speech means you can distribute literature of hate at an event attended by women, children, and people of all races and creeds? I don't think that's what was intended by the amendment. It was intended more for people to express their concern about the actions of the government without the fear of repercussion, as the British Monarchy had been known to do.

 

[BoberFett]

It was directed at you Xerox Man.

<< When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church ? and there was nobody left to be concerned.

-Martin Niem&ouml;ller, pastor and anti-Nazi activist >>

What many don't realize is that when you take away others freedoms, you're also taking away your own.

 

[BoberFett]

Xerox Man

I'll quote you.

<< Unlike this fellow's idols, I committed no crime. >>

You wanted to kill this man for the crimes of others? That's the same sort of thinking that could lead an black man to kill you because you're white, whites having had black slaves.

 

[DesignDawg]

You are spinning your wheels. Let me quote you also.



<< Unlike this fellow's idols, I committed no crime. >>


A-HA! TRUE!!! but guess what buddy boy!

Unlike this fellow's idols, HE committed no crime. Speaking is not a crime. He has done no more harm than you in this case. So how, exactly is it different?

Ricky
DesignDawg

 

[XMan]

Obviously I am somehow wrong for being outraged that a person could have Nazi ideals in the year 2000.

As such, I guess there's no reason to continue this thread.

 

[Regine]

<< The original swastika is a symbol of peace. >>



Actually, the swastika symbol that the Nazis adopted is an old Germanic sun symbol. It is found on many Germanic and Celtic stones.

But you're right, everybody has associated it with Nazis since the 1930's and 40's. Even if people wear it now as a symbol of peace or the sun I think it is wrong, simply because it is so offensive to a majority of people and the message that it conveys.