Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 11:43 PM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #49

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are stronger than you are. To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question…

Nope. They'll just set up around the building, peer in through the windows with binoculars, and if you appear armed snipe you from afar. Regardless, they don't care: if you take out a few agents they'll just send in more.

Post by PoachedSausage » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 11:49 PM UTC

vilhelm_s wrote: post #9

astrodust wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is owning a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook or Mein Kampf going to be a criminal offense? What about a video version of same?

Anarchist's Cookbook, yes, probably. There has already been several convictions under this law for owning descriptions of how to make bombs. (The law dates from 2000, although the maximum sentence is now being increased from 10 to 15 years). Mein Kampf, I'm less sure, there have been people charged with owning ISIS propaganda, but I'm not sure exactly how it worked out on appeal. (They were also convicted on other co…

Post by codedokode » Fri, Oct 06, 2017, 11:59 PM UTC

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #45

ykler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force. And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can get you arrested.

It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are stronger than you are. To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question…

Post by codedokode » Sat, Oct 07, 2017, 12:01 AM UTC

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #63

codedokode wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's wrong. You can kill several cops who were only doing their job but you cannot win against army forces. You cannot defend your rights from government with a weapon. The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful for mass shootings.

Please see my comment in response to TheSpiceIsLife. Of course you are correct that any one individual person could not effectively defend their home against a more well armed government dedicated to defeating them, but that in no way refutes my point.

Post by klatuveranictu » Sat, Oct 07, 2017, 12:04 AM UTC

rjeli wrote: post #40

wcarron wrote: post #4

Oh...shit. That is both stupefying and petrifying. More and more I feel that there is a new class war coming; and it is not rich vs poor so much as it is governments vs civilians. Really wondering whether this will be shot down or if other governments will follow suit down this road as quickly as possible. Instinct tells me the latter is more likely. I've not been on this Earth long, but where the fuck did all my fre…

This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment