2019-03-17 - New Zealand Police: "We would like to preserve any posts and technical data including IP addresses, email addresses etc"

[Крыса]

Elijah Lovejoy.

YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

"Gentlemen! As long as I am an American, as long as American blood runs through these veins, I shall hold myself at Liberty to Write, to Speak, to Publish on what ever I please!"

But... how is that a good example ? I mean if anything it proves that you can get away with murdering someone who stated an unpopular opinion and nobody will do anything about it. In this case people literally shot a champion of 1A rights and apparently nobody cared, or am I getting something wrong here ?

 

[2nd_time_user]

The Second Amendment is a deterrent to offending the First. If the government attempts to violate it, then the people will arm themselves and fight. No matter who wins, it'll be an awful sight that the government isn't eager to see. If nobody was armed, nobody would be able to contest the suppression of the First.

My lad, no they won't, not after Ruby Ridge and Waco and especially the Patriot Act. If it's you against even a mid-city's qualitative firepower, you have zero chance with whatever you've got.

 

[Mrs Paul]

Can we get back to discussing Shithole Countries?


I'm guessing Crimea or South Ossetia?

I thought we were discussing what a scumbag Null is?

 

[Florence]

Don't worry after 121th vote on not being part of europe we will finally get it, EU rules!!!

edit: fuck you censoring chief censors, fucking KF is free speech platform, fuck you Jannies and fuck you @Null

lol calm down

 

[HG 400]

Keep in mind it's been natural to Europe for weapons to be restricted to certain parties since feudal times. Only nobles were allowed to be warriors and all that. All the modern era did was slightly liberalize things by making the group of people allowed the use of weapons slightly wider in most European countries and those with similar traditions, but at the end of the day what an American takes for granted as a right since our founding documents say we have guns as a right, for most Europeans it's a privledge because it's always been that for anyone who wasn't, by default, supposed to carry arms as a profession.

That's not true at all. Medieval cities generally had strict carry ordinances, especially towards non-residents, but that was no different than the typical wild west town. Restricting sword ownership to gentlefolk was only a thing in some parts of the H.R.E, where commoners easily circumvented the law by carrying sword-sized knives and nobody had a problem with it. Bows and crossbows could get peasants into a lot of trouble, but only because it cast suspicion of poaching on them. There were also church statutes against the use of crossbows (in France) and warhammers (in Poland) but nobody ever enforced them. That's about it. Weapons in general were almost completely unregulated throughout Europe, and arms control didn't start becoming a thing until the end of WW1, when a huge surplus of military weapons combined with growing communist support and a population full of impoverished and disillusioned war veterans made governments very afraid.

 

[Rabidcolombian]

I get that. People will defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights. But can you give an example of that happening ? Or did the US government never violate the right of the US people ?

Yes, they have.

Look up Waco and Ruby Ridge (and these are recent examples), I won't go too far into it, but both these situations started as normal citizens just going "Fuck off" to the US government as they try to live off the grid or in a commune and it devolving into massacres as soon as the FBI thinks they're threats. Both situations are very controversial as the FBI likes to blame the citizens for not compiling with them, but if you look into those cases deep (actual do lots of research) the FBI had no rights to interfere with these people and violated a lot of their rights.

Some years later a small cult sprung up in some hick town and one of the leaders bit a police officer. He ran to his compound as the police surrounded his house and it was basically a stand off as he had firearms. At the end of the day the police eventually said fuck it and left because it wasn't worth the bad press due to the two recent fuck ups. He still hasnt been arrested to this day because it simple is not worth the trouble. I'll link some vids if you need it

So the second amendment was already useful before it even existed.

I'm not goanna railroad you for not knowing basic American history, but knowing something this crucial will possibly help you understand why we Americans think the way we do. The American revolution started because the British were coming take our firearms and break up our militias. The battle was Lexington and Concord. You could say the birth of our country and values is inherently linked to this.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

Anything not in English is freer.

I follow a lot of Middle-eastern folks on the Twitter, and they've had uncensored copies of the shooting vids posted up since the day (hell, probably since the hour) that it happened.

Can anyone think of a way to spin this that would cause a mass block of Twitter in NZ & Aus?

Yeah, for whatever reason they don’t moderate non-English versions of their sites. Probably because it’d cost too much.

I wish this could end Twitter. It’s without a doubt the worst social media platform.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Yes, they have.

Look up Waco and Ruby Ridge (and these are recent examples), I won't go too far into it, but both these situations started as normal citizens just going "Fuck off" to the US government as they try to live off the grid or in a commune and it devolving into massacres as soon as the FBI thinks they're threats. Both situations are very controversial as the FBI likes to blame the citizens for not compiling with them, but if you look into those cases deep (actual do lots of research) the FBI had no rights to interfere with these people and violated a lot of their rights.

No. In both those cases, the government concluded that they had weapons that were not authorized, which isn't 1a. You can argue that they should have been allowed to have those weapons under 2a, but it wasn't a 1a issue per se.

 

[ObeseScreamingBlackMan]

The American revolution started because the British were coming take our firearms and break up our militias. The battle was Lexington and Concord. You could say the birth of our country and values is inherently linked to this.

Hey, yutz! Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face.

 

[JosephStalin]

Yeah, for whatever reason they don’t moderate non-English versions of their sites. Probably because it’d cost too much.

I wish this could end Twitter. It’s without a doubt the worst social media platform.

I avoid Twitter, Facebook, and all social media. Just don't see any upside in it. See lots of downside.

 

[Jeremy Galt]

My lad, no they won't, not after Ruby Ridge and Waco and especially the Patriot Act. If it's you against even a mid-city's qualitative firepower, you have zero chance with whatever you've got.

I must disagree with this. If anything, Waco and Ruby Ridge showed the government out of control and hardened the hearts of a multitude of gun owners. A perspective of what is more likely to happen was shown in Oregon not too long ago, where the government had to back down.....

 

[Solzhenitsyn]

What strange times we live in. I've no interest in watching it but what exactly makes them think that you can just demand details off a website?

Because it's been working great for them so far?
Reddit, Discord, LiveLeak, and Facebook all surrendered without so much as a whimper. And if a site doesn't just hand it over, they have a swarm of media outlets to publish stories on how that website is supporting and protecting terrorists. And if that doesn't work, you can just demand that ISPs block access to the site.

 

[thx1138]

But... how is that a good example ? I mean if anything it proves that you can get away with murdering someone who stated an unpopular opinion and nobody will do anything about it. In this case people literally shot a champion of 1A rights and apparently nobody cared, or am I getting something wrong here ?

People stood with him. Armed people. They didn't prevail, but they stood up for it. It'd have failed much sooner and the people trying to shut him down would've gone on to do worse if they hadn't.

 

[Rabidcolombian]

Ruby Ridge

Waco

The man who bit the police officer

I want you to understand just how much these events changed how the FBI and American people see the other. People STILL talk about Waco and Ruby Ridge to this day arguing who was at fault. And these wounds are still fresh enough that the FBI KNOWS it will be bad optics to do something like this again.

If they can't take on a deranged 90 year old man, how do you think they're goanna take on half the damn country with firearms?

 

[Sbralph]

Techkikes just don't give a shit anymore ?

 

[Rabidcolombian]

No. In both those cases, the government concluded that they had weapons that were not authorized, which isn't 1a. You can argue that they should have been allowed to have those weapons under 2a, but it wasn't a 1a issue per se.

Read up on it because there are lots of conflicting views on what really happend. The FBI also ended up having to have to apologize.

Point is at the end of the day (no matter which side was right or wrong) it still makes our government take a step back and wonder if they really are up to fucking with us. And our firearms are a key reason why.

 

[GethN7]

That's not true at all. Medieval cities generally had strict carry ordinances, especially towards non-residents, but that was no different than the typical wild west town. Restricting sword ownership to gentlefolk was only a thing in some parts of the H.R.E, where commoners easily circumvented the law by carrying sword-sized knives and nobody had a problem with it. Bows and crossbows could get peasants into a lot of trouble, but only because it cast suspicion of poaching on them. There were also church statutes against the use of crossbows (in France) and warhammers (in Poland) but nobody ever enforced them. That's about it. Weapons in general were almost completely unregulated throughout Europe, and arms control didn't start becoming a thing until the end of WW1, when a huge surplus of military weapons combined with growing communist support and a population full of impoverished and disillusioned war veterans made governments very afraid.

Point taken, but the laws on the commoner were often so stiff and most people so poor any random guy with a weapon of military grade ordinance was exception rather than rule most of the time, and murder sprees and terrorism (like the Irish Troubles) also served as lovely excuses to pass obscenely strict gun laws in the modern era even where most regulations did not exist prior.

Basically, gun grabbing is far more acceptable in non-US countries and non-US citizens roll over and play dead for that a lot easier, like they did for this:

Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2nd_time_user]

Both Waco and RR had the government alleging that they had weapons the government didn't authorize them to have, which proved true.

If it weren't for that, Randy Weaver and the Waco people would not have been shot at.

For example, there's a huge Scientology complex out in Riverside County that restricts members' movement while indoctrinating them incessantly and forever. If asked, those people will uniformly say they are following their faith and creed, and are happy doing that. The FBI looked into this in 2010 and concluded that nope, they can't do anything.

ETA: The FBI apologized because their person took kill shots at unarmed combatants and/or used otherwise insane amounts of force. They do that less, but if they did decide to do it, saying that someone had amounts of bump-stocked, scoped, silenced, pistol gripped ARs would provide the best cover.

Frankly, I do not see why people think that ARs/AKs specked out with bump stocks, pistol grips, high-end scopes, silencers etc. will get the government to back off. The government has SWAT units of 7-12, all with better firepower. They can get helicopters. Drones. Full-autos. Tanks. And them having a reasonable case that you have a couple illegal spec'd out ARs is the best ammunition they have to go after you.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

It really is bizarre...

I've had European penpal who just can't wrap their head around the right to bear arms, no matter how hard I try. It's like it's in their blood to always look at the state as their sitter and as an American, I just don't understand it. It's not a hard concept to get that power corrupts always, no matter what point in history we're in.

That firearms confiscated letter scared the absolute shit out of me but Europeans just shrug their shoulders and go meh.

As someone from Canuckistan, I think it comes down to "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others". The more equal are royalty, and outside of the US, that has been the historical norm. Royalty have the final say. It leads to bootlicking and abdication of responsibility.

 

[Star Stuff]

Both Waco and RR had the government alleging that they had weapons the government didn't authorize them to have, which proved true.

If it weren't for that, Randy Weaver and the Waco people would not have been shot at.

For example, there's a huge Scientology complex out in Riverside County that restricts members' movement while indoctrinating them incessantly and forever. If asked, those people will uniformly say they are following their faith and creed, and are happy doing that. The FBI looked into this in 2010 and concluded that nope, they can't do anything.

ETA: The FBI apologized because their person took kill shots at unarmed combatants and/or used otherwise insane amounts of force. They do that less, but if they did decide to do it, saying that someone had amounts of bump-stocked, scoped, silenced, pistol gripped ARs would provide the best cover.

Frankly, I do not see why people think that ARs/AKs specked out with bump stocks, pistol grips, high-end scopes, silencers etc. will get the government to back off. The government has SWAT units of 7-12, all with better firepower. They can get helicopters. Drones. Full-autos. Tanks. And them having a reasonable case that you have a couple illegal spec'd out ARs is the best ammunition they have to go after you.

I hate this argument because it's one that makes the least sense while sounding like it makes the most. It's almost insidious.

Tell me: Is deploying helicopters/tanks/soldiers/SWATs on people for anything short of a terrorist cell something that EVER blows over well not only in the US, but internationally? Does the government truly think "they have guns and fight, raze 'em all" is an option? If it was, wouldn't have they done it already to quell the mass dissent people generally have for them? Would the soldiers even be on board? Do you think that every branch of the US military would go "Yeah, I'll just gun down my own people because they believe in something I enlisted to protect"?

That's why I said it doesn't matter who wins that sort of clash. It won't be pretty either way. What an exasperating and incredibly ignorant argument to present.