Why were 20 people shot dead and 24 injured in El Paso today, and what’s causing the recent trend since the 90s of mass shootings and massacres.

[Elfdude]

All of this is rendered irrelevant by your use of the word "anyone" which implied a total disregard for context if the alleged victim were a Nazi. This is what juxtaposed you with the law. To put it another way, the criminal justice system does not (nor does it intend to) "acquit anyone for punching a nazi". Nevertheless, at the time I gave you the benefit of the doubt by specifically stating "You wouldn't be the first person to acquit a defendant on the basis of personal views rather than the law, but even in such a case I imagine it would be contextual."

Firstly, the word anyone matters not, nor does it imply anything with regards to context. The only way my statement rings true is with regards to two other specifics in the line also being true, namely, 1. a Nazi and 2. a punch. Further there is no juxtaposition with the law because punching someone is not full stop against the law in the US. It can be is what the law specifies, and it only is should one be found guilty of the charges. The criminal justice system absolutely does allow for the acquittal of anyone punching a nazi for a variety of reasons, it also does allow for the conviction of somone punching a nazi for various reasons. Your understanding of law is in error and hence your attempt to claim that I am ignoring the law in favor of personal views is in error.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...nalist-719985/

I don't recall anyone in this thread trying to argue that "leftists" are "worse" than white nationalist terrorists.

Pay attention more I suppose.

And your source is... what?

I've already posted my justifications, either point out specifically what you contest and I'll provide further explanation or post an explanation on how and why I'm wrong. You've done neither.

So far your line of argument went from justifying violence for purposes of political intimidation (which de-jure falls under definition of terrorism) when its done by the left and then immediately claim that accusing left of doing that "is BS". So not only did you make a claim with no evidence, you contradicted yourself at the same time. How embarrassing.

No one has defended political intimidation. Punching a nazi is not political intimidation.

Also another baseless statement. It is fair to point out that in the last 30 years liberalism via foreign policy of certain countries has claimed far more lives in the whole "ideology behind violence" aspect then any other set of beliefs.

No it is not as you've provided zero evidence of linkage between these groups, liberalism and the history you've cited. You've left their linkage as assumed true. On the other hand the linkage on the other-side which is why you've brought it up in the first place is iron-clad, explicit and obvious.

[Cope]

[/COLOR] Firstly, the word anyone matters not, nor does it imply anything with regards to context. The only way my statement rings true is with regards to two other specifics in the line also being true, namely, 1. a Nazi and 2. a punch.

You disregarded all other context outside of those parameters - which isn't what the criminal justice system expects of jurors.

Further there is no juxtaposition with the law because punching someone is not full stop against the law in the US. It can be is what the law specifies, and it only is should one be found guilty of the charges. The criminal justice system absolutely does allow for the acquittal of anyone punching a nazi for a variety of reasons, it also does allow for the conviction of somone punching a nazi for various reasons. Your understanding of law is in error and hence your attempt to claim that I am ignoring the law in favor of personal views is in error.

Stating that you "would acquit anyone for punching a nazi" is not the same as stating that anyone who punched a Nazi could be acquitted. At no point have I stated that punching a person must necessarily result in a conviction and/or a punishment or that there aren't a plethora of potential mitigating circumstances.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...nalist-719985/

Not relevant for the above stated reasons.

Pay attention more I suppose.

Show me a quotation?

[Elfdude]

You disregarded all other context outside of those parameters - which isn't what the criminal justice system expects of jurors.

That is your opinion, a baseless one at that.

Stating that you "would acquit anyone for punching a nazi" is not the same as stating that anyone who punched a Nazi could be acquitted.

I'm not backing away and claiming could be acquitted. There are circumstance which would change my initial ruling but when it comes down to random guy A punched random guy B who was a Nazi I would find random guy A is fully justified in their actions and thus acquit. This is exactly what the criminal justice system expects of me.

At no point have I stated that punching a person must necessarily result in a conviction and/or a punishment or that there aren't a plethora of potential mitigating circumstances.

You merely said that acquitting was ignoring the law (which again is false).

Not relevant for the above stated reasons.

Quite relevant.

[Cope]

That is your opinion, a baseless one at that.

It is based on the nature of the way you constructed your sentence.

I'm not backing away and claiming could be acquitted. There are circumstance which would change my initial ruling but when it comes down to random guy A punched random guy B who was a Nazi I would find random guy A is fully justified in their actions and thus acquit. This is exactly what the criminal justice system expects of me.

No, it isn't. There is no default legal position on the hypothetical you've introduced. All rulings and subsequent judgments are contingent upon context.

You merely said that acquitting was ignoring the law (which again is false).

I did not.

[Heathen Hammer]

No one has defended political intimidation. Punching a nazi is not political intimidation.

Assaulting someone because of their beliefs is a textbook example of political intimidation.

No it is not as you've provided zero evidence of linkage between these groups, liberalism and the history you've cited. You've left their linkage as assumed true. On the other hand the linkage on the other-side which is why you've brought it up in the first place is iron-clad, explicit and obvious.

Except that linkage between liberalism and US foreign policy of the past 3 decades is quite clear (both neoconservatism and neoliberalism were spawned by liberalism). And that policy has caused far more deaths then any "extreme" ideology combined.

[Vanoi]

Assaulting someone because of their beliefs is a textbook example of political intimidation.

Nope.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594

Political intimidation is a well defined law. Simply punching a Nazi over his beliefs isn't political intimidation.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nope.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594

Political intimidation is a well defined law. Simply punching a Nazi over his beliefs isn't political intimidation.

Hmm, did you actually read the link you posted? Since it does prove my point: assaulting or even threatening people over their political beliefs is illegal. So yeah, just because you commit an act of terror against a person that you think is a "Nazi" doesn't make it legal and could be classified as an act of terror as well.

[Elfdude]

No, it's not. Nazi is not something which is encompassed by lawful political belief nor is it protected. There's caveats here of course but first a legal political belief is one which does not advocate for illegal activity, i.e. genocide is unfortunately illegal and allusions to it immediately lose your protected political belief status. Now you retain the right to exercise your freedom of speech so-long as your statements do not constitute a reasonable incitement of the people around you but repeatedly (especially when nazis are being punched) they are found to be actively inciting violence against those around them which often becomes a part of the argument for the defense i.e. this was a call towards incitement, people have a right to protect themselves and those they care about from active incitement of violence. So yes, there's a lot of quazi grey areas here but ultimately your attempt to call something terrorism is just plain BS. No court in the country would respect your definition, nor would they call Nazi propaganda a form of protected political speech which has greater protections than just ordinary free speech. For example, a peaceful march with appropriate city permits is protected political speech.

The thing proud boys did in portland where they actively called for members to be ready for violence both inciting and causing rendered this demonstration off the bat no longer protected meaning the counter-protesters who became engaged in violence had an affirmative defense against the idea of political intimidation this meant that all things considered the law rendered any violence which was proportional and reasonable no greater in penalty than a typical bar fight. Group dynamics and laws become weird things as well meaning one proud boy who was under the mistaken impression of their absolute innocence who showed up to support their protest but did not engage in any violence now suffers under the group behavior i.e. if their group has any reasonable evidence of intent to commit violence everyone of them (even those without it) also can be reasonably considered to have intent to commit violence once again render kerfuffles between individuals no more serious under the law than a mutual bar fight.

Now it's important to consider that the equal opportunity act does treat different groups differently. Its a much lower standard for a minority group or groups considered to be inherently at disadvantage to be "politically intimidated" this is why while burning a cross is perfectly protected political speech when performed in your private KKK campout, burning a cross across from a black church is almost immediately considered political intimidation and terrorism. The KKK is not considered disadvantaged by the law, whereas black minorities are, meaning it's much easier for a ruling of terrorism to be arrived at.

Anyways, I tire of your crappy semantics, suffice to say the law doesn't work the way you think it does. Punching a nazi who is actively advocating nazi propaganda is rarely something which can be prosecuted and in the rare instance it can it tends to go rather poorly for the nazi because the law relies inherently on personal views on acceptability and few people consider nazi sentiments to be acceptable. There's thousands of reasons, whole books which can be written on the subject and frankly our debate is unlikely to elucidate them, but the burden of reality is that your view is more than laughable.

Beyond that White Nationalism is a poisonous deleterious belief our societies, you've yet to connect any of the historical actions to your perceived idea that antifa is worse than white nationalism. You have no argument whatsoever that white nationalists aren't extraordinarily and disproportionately violent and murderous. You really are just acting as a placard for repeating the same baseless claims over and over ad-nauseam. Which is a fair strategy, often the person who repeats their view the most wins in the eyes of public debate, although I imagine it's personally frustrating to know your views are so hollow.

[Knight of Heaven]

I'm not backing away and claiming could be acquitted. There are circumstance which would change my initial ruling but when it comes down to random guy A punched random guy B who was a Nazi I would find random guy A is fully justified in their actions and thus acquit. This is exactly what the criminal justice system expects of me.

That is exactly what the criminal justice system doesn't expect from, you. Unless said individual nazi threaten your life in some way, im pretty sure modern justice doesn't reward assaulting someone, unless self defense.

No, it's not. Nazi is not something which is encompassed by lawful political belief nor is it protected.

Im pretty sure you are wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be nazis walking around.

[Infidel144]

Im pretty sure you are wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be nazis walking around.

You can be more than "pretty sure". There is an actual "American Nazi Party", that has been in existence (under various names) since 1959. But then, Elfdude repeatedly spews BS.
I mean, take this statement:
"Now you retain the right to exercise your freedom of speech so-long as your statements do not constitute a reasonable incitement of the people around you...".
There is no standard of "reasonable incitement".
The standard is the Brandenburg test and under Brandenburg speech is protected unless:
"1.The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2.The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

[Heathen Hammer]

@Elfdude
As far as American law is concerned, there are no illegal ideologies. Look up US constitution. From that perspective, law sees no difference between socialism, social democracy, national-socialism, liberalism, fascism, communism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism or any pother political ideology. So no, assaulting people for beliefs you don't like is still illegal and should be so. I'm pretty much okay with classifying the whole "punch a nazi" thing as terrorism, since it falls under its definition. And yes, from legal perspective a militant member of antifa who is assaulting people is a criminal, while a dude peacefully carrying some kind of swastika symbol is not. Just because you disagree with laws doesn't mean they somehow would change to adapt to your extreme beliefs and let you commit acts of violence where you please.
Also it is important to point out that if we judge ideologies by how much violence they caused, in the past 30 years or so, then liberalism and ideologies that it spawned is an undisputed champion in being "a poisonous deleterious belief". So is punching liberals is okay with you too?

[Elfdude]

As far as American law is concerned, there are no illegal ideologies.

This is patently false. You may have the ideal that murder is fine but the US law is not going to compromise on that notion without a damn good reason. Reasonability pervades all of US law, the constitution and enforcement therein. To a certain extent this is largely populous but there's certain ethical and moral frameworks which always are highly biased against and for, there's a reason why the law sides with the minority and it's in these cases especially which we can start to see the hints of the slant in the law. Perhaps that or human nature is better than we otherwise think.

Look up US constitution. From that perspective, law sees no difference between socialism, social democracy, national-socialism, liberalism, fascism, communism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism or any pother political ideology.

It quite definitely does. Firstly the US is a country which the right of self determination is a sacred concept. Fascism is almost directly juxtaposed to the laws enshrined in the basis of our country's constitution, as are monarchy, despotism, elitism. Other concepts also contradict many other political ideologies. Individualism is strongly enshrined, equity is strongly enshrined etc. Fascism is in strong opposition to the core values enshrined in the ethical framework of this country.

So no, assaulting people for beliefs you don't like is still illegal and should be so.

Gross oversimplification. What I said only stands in the context which I placed it. If you want to have a different debate go for it but you're not arguing anything anymore because I don't disagree with this statement.

I'm pretty much okay with classifying the whole "punch a nazi" thing as terrorism, since it falls under its definition.

You've yet to show this. In fact the court repeatedly disagrees with you. So in theory, your semantic idea is baseless, and in reality your semantic notion is without foundation.

And yes, from legal perspective a militant member of antifa who is assaulting people is a criminal, while a dude peacefully carrying some kind of swastika symbol is not.

Eh, the concept of carrying a Nazi symbol as peaceful is highly debatable.

Just because you disagree with laws doesn't mean they somehow would change to adapt to your extreme beliefs and let you commit acts of violence where you please.

Strawman, attacking a position I don't hold.

Also it is important to point out that if we judge ideologies by how much violence they caused, in the past 30 years or so, then liberalism and ideologies that it spawned is an undisputed champion in being "a poisonous deleterious belief".

You have not substantiated this claim.

So is punching liberals is okay with you too?

Depends on context.

[Vanoi]

Hmm, did you actually read the link you posted? Since it does prove my point: assaulting or even threatening people over their political beliefs is illegal. So yeah, just because you commit an act of terror against a person that you think is a "Nazi" doesn't make it legal and could be classified as an act of terror as well.

I did. Did you miss the first part? The interfearing a person's right to vote? Unles you can prove the person's goal was to stop the Nazi from voting its not political intimidation.

[Heathen Hammer]

This is patently false. You may have the ideal that murder is fine but the US law is not going to compromise on that notion without a damn good reason. Reasonability pervades all of US law, the constitution and enforcement therein. To a certain extent this is largely populous but there's certain ethical and moral frameworks which always are highly biased against and for, there's a reason why the law sides with the minority and it's in these cases especially which we can start to see the hints of the slant in the law. Perhaps that or human nature is better than we otherwise think.



It quite definitely does. Firstly the US is a country which the right of self determination is a sacred concept. Fascism is almost directly juxtaposed to the laws enshrined in the basis of our country's constitution, as are monarchy, despotism, elitism. Other concepts also contradict many other political ideologies. Individualism is strongly enshrined, equity is strongly enshrined etc. Fascism is in strong opposition to the core values enshrined in the ethical framework of this country.



Gross oversimplification. What I said only stands in the context which I placed it. If you want to have a different debate go for it but you're not arguing anything anymore because I don't disagree with this statement.



You've yet to show this. In fact the court repeatedly disagrees with you. So in theory, your semantic idea is baseless, and in reality your semantic notion is without foundation.



Eh, the concept of carrying a Nazi symbol as peaceful is highly debatable.



Strawman, attacking a position I don't hold.



You have not substantiated this claim.



Depends on context.

I think you might want to look up US constitituional law before you make such claims. As it was pointed out above, you can have any ideology you want, be it liberalism or national-socialism. If Fascism was illegal, then we'd probably see groups like antifa being rounded up because of their ideological similarity to fascism (to a much bigger extent then self-proclaimed fascists are).
Carrying bible, swastika, hammer & sickle or American flag is also equally legal. Your personal beliefs on what is peaceful are irrelevant here.
I think the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you attempt to interpret the law through the prism of your own rather extreme and fringe (at least based on your post) political beliefs.
Also we have the last 30 years of Western foreign policies, which probve my point about modern globalist liberalism being far more dangerous from that perspective then all 'extreme" ideologies put together.

I did. Did you miss the first part? The interfearing a person's right to vote? Unles you can prove the person's goal was to stop the Nazi from voting its not political intimidation.

Political intimidation isn't just preventing someone from voting, and also includes things like assaulting someone for their political beliefs.

[Elfdude]

I think you might want to look up US constitituional law before you make such claims. As it was pointed out above, you can have any ideology you want, be it liberalism or national-socialism. If Fascism was illegal, then we'd probably see groups like antifa being rounded up because of their ideological similarity to fascism (to a much bigger extent then self-proclaimed fascists are).

I have, you have no basis to your claims. You want to claim unicorns exist without presenting a unicorn. Have fun with that.

Carrying bible, swastika, hammer & sickle or American flag is also equally legal.

Didn't say it wasn't legal, although contexts can arise which make it hostile.

Your personal beliefs on what is peaceful are irrelevant here.

I'm not leaning on my personal belief, I'm leaning on law and court precedent. Please cite something which shows me I am wrong (you can't).

I think the main problem with your line of reasoning is that you attempt to interpret the law through the prism of your own rather extreme and fringe (at least based on your post) political beliefs.

Your own fringe political beliefs in no way inform this personal opinion (they obviously do and are the only basis you have).

Also we have the last 30 years of Western foreign policies, which probve my point about modern globalist liberalism being far more dangerous from that perspective then all 'extreme" ideologies put together.

No you don't. You have an arbitrary qualifier you've applied wholesale to history with severely arguable accuracy which is in reality your own personalized definition of a concept which has become a stand in for "anything I disagree with" that's a bollocks claim and its utterly transparent you keep trying to prop it up with more sand.

Political intimidation isn't just preventing someone from voting, and also includes things like assaulting someone for their political beliefs.

Errm, no its not. First off political intimidation is not a law in the US. The only law which is even similar is voter intimidation, secondly voter intimidation has a specific context. There is no standard in assault which recognizes political belief as protected whatsoever, many attempts to make it so have utterly failed for obvious slippery slope reasons. The reality here is that punching someone is not assault until determined as such in a court of law as assault is a legal term, in terms of colloquial use where it means merely violence of somesort (utterly divorced from legal meaning) there are a huge variety of reasons it may be justified under US law. This is an important distinction your shoddy reasoning refuses to acknowledge and is why repeatedly your logic would presume outcomes in the court of law which simply do not exist and will not exist.

Political intimidation as in Voter Intimidation does however include harassing people because of potential citizenship status when it comes to voting, giving out false information as an election official or purposely spreading false information with malicious intent as a layperson. Punching a nazi has nothing to do with that.

[Heathen Hammer]

I was talking about conventional definition of terrorism, which is violence for ideological purposes, in this case violence against people exercising their constitutional freedoms. Law is quite clear, and there is little difference between evangelist assaulting a pro-lifer or antifa supporter assaulting a right-winger. Act of violence can only be justified as self-defense, laws on which may vary state to state, but there is no evidence that there are such that would classify physical violence against person expressing their political beliefs as such.

[Elfdude]

I was talking about conventional definition of terrorism

No you weren't, you were talking about your own Heathen Hammer TM definition which is so utterly convoluted as to be utter BS. Try speaking english if you want to be understood because the words you are using are contradicting your own views.

which is violence for ideological purposes

Terrorism is violence for ideological purposes?! That is the most hilarious ass-backwards idea of terrorism I've ever heard. In what world did you gather this definition? Terrorism is usually a state or pseudo state group targeting soft targets with the intent to inspire terror to apply political leverage. I suppose you can corrupt that idea and severely simplify it down to your meaningless definition. Punching a Nazi never has been nor ever will be an act of terrorism.

In this case violence against people exercising their constitutional freedoms.

There is no constitutional freedom to espousing hateful and inciteful rhetoric.

Law is quite clear, and there is little difference between evangelist assaulting a pro-lifer or antifa supporter assaulting a right-winger.

There's considerable difference, although in both cases charges are unlikely to be filed. Now if the evangelist fire bombs a pro-lifer or a right-winger gets fire bombed that'd be considerably different.

Act of violence can only be justified as self-defense, laws on which may vary state to state, but there is no evidence that there are such that would classify physical violence against person expressing their political beliefs as such.

Which is why all these people punching nazis are getting locked up (they're not) and convicted (they're not).

Once again your statements are utterly BS repetition of the same tired claim you've tried to assert again and again with zero evidence. Keep trying buddy, I'm sure you'll make a good point with patience.

[Common Soldier]

I came across this article, that is relevant to this debate: https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...-mass-killings

Important points in the article on US mass shootings are:

1. Mass shootings are rare, and public mass shootings even rarer.

* Only 0.2% of the homicide and 1% of the homicide victims are a result for mass shooting.
* The rate of mass shootings is roughly the same as it has been in the 1980's and 1990's
* Only 12% of the mass shootings involve public mass shootings - most are family/friends mass shooting or robberies gone wrong.

2. Many of the proposed gun control measures will not affect mass shootings.
* 60% of the mass shootings used handguns alone, and only 10% used only only a rifle
* 90% of the mass shootings occurred in "gun-free" zones.
{And my observation - tough gun laws did not prevent the 2011 mass shooting Norway that killed 69 persons by shooting. Given Norway's population is less than 1/10 the US, it would be equivalent to a shooting killing 690 persons in the US.)

3. Mass shooters frequently have a history of mental illness - the vast majority of those with mental illness do not turn into deadly killers and currently there is no way to tell those that will.

4. The US problem with public mass shootings is no worse than many other countries when you factor in population size
* The European Union had 27% more casualties per capita from public mass shootings than the US from 2009 to 2015

5. Mass killers frequently can find other ways to kill without using firearms.
* The deadliest attack on the LGBT community before the 2016 New Orleans nightclub shooting was an arsonist attack in 1973 that killed 43 in New Orleans
* A disgruntled former airline employee killed 43 persons in 18987 by hijacking and intentionally crashing a plane.
* An angry ex lover killed 87 persons by burning down the social club in former girl friend worked at in 1990.

(And of course, the numbers killed in the 911 attack outnumbered all the mass shooting victims combined, all achieved without the use of a gun, my obersvation. )

6. .Australia did not eliminate mass shootings by banning assault rifles.


While stricter gun controls might save a few lives, it is unlikely to save a significantly greater number simply due to the fact mass public shootings are rather rare to begin with. Tighter gun control laws would lower the number of suicides, though. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN1GH39W.

Suicides are often an act of momentary impulse, and many times after one unsuccessful attempt the person never tries it again. But the deadly nature of guns means that the person who attempts suicide with a gun will most likely succeed.

In 2014, there were 469,096 self-harm, nonfatal hospital admissions to emergency departments in the United States, 3,320 (less than 1 percent) of which were caused by a firearm (CDC, 2017c). This may be because between 83 and 91 percent of those who attempt suicide with a firearm die, which is a higher rate than some other methods of suicide, https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...s/suicide.html

The fact is, the majority of gun deaths in the US are not killings by the police, deaths occurring during self defense, or even homicides, but suicides And since the majority of suicides by guns are white males, the biggest beneficiary of stricter gun laws would be white males.

• Nearly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides.5 The U.S. gun suicide rate is 10 times that of other high-income countries.6
• Access to a gun increases the risk of death by suicide by three times.7 Gun suicides are concentrated in states with high rates of gun ownership.8
• Most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun. Across all suicide attempts not involving a firearm, less than five percent will result in death.9 But for gun suicides, those statistics are flipped: approximately 85 percent of gun suicide attempts end in death.10
• White men represent 74 percent of firearm suicide victims in America.11 https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

.

[Heathen Hammer]

@elfdude

Terrorism is usually a state or pseudo state group targeting soft targets with the intent to inspire terror to apply political leverage. I suppose you can corrupt that idea and severely simplify it down to your meaningless definition. Punching a Nazi never has been nor ever will be an act of terrorism.

Assaulting someone because of their political views can and should be interpreted as an attempt to inspire terror to apply political leverage. US government is moving closer to define antifa as a terrorist group for a reason.

There is no constitutional freedom to espousing hateful and inciteful rhetoric.

Its called 1st amendment.

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't really contain any arguments worth addressing, so we'll just let you try and address those two points in a more coherent way.

[mongrel]

@elfdude

Assaulting someone because of their political views can and should be interpreted as an attempt to inspire terror to apply political leverage. US government is moving closer to define antifa as a terrorist group for a reason.

.

I frown own you flogging this dead horse on a thread about some Nazi murdering 20 people.

Its called having a moral compass.