1. If you regularly pose proudly in front of a swastika flag, you might be a Nazi loser.
2. If you refer to “non-whites” as the “dirt people,” you might be a Nazi loser.
3. If you are the lead singer in a bad racist punk band, you might be a Nazi loser.
4. If your response to the possible election of a black president is “stand and fight,” you might be a Nazi loser.
5. If your racist schlock punk album is titled “Violent Victory” and shows a “white arm punching a black man in the face,” you might be a Nazi loser.
6. If you are a recruiter at barbecues for the Hammerskins, you might be a Nazi loser.
7. If your online handle is “Jack Boot,” you might be a Nazi loser.
8. If you perform constantly at racial-extremist punk “concerts” you might be a Nazi loser.
9. When the other hardcore racists say of you “please do not think we are all like that,” you might be a Nazi loser.
10. When you hate to death innocent men and women because their skin color or dress or religion is different from yours, you might be a Nazi loser.
So that’s easy. Three harder questions:
A) Should we really be selling guns so freely to known Nazi losers and to crazy people being reported as unstable by their psychiatrists?
B) Why is Pamela Geller, the leader of the campaign against the Manhattan Muslim community center, hanging around with Swedish Nazi losers?
C) Given the actual dangers of the far right in the US and Europe, shouldn’t Likudniks be ashamed of themselves for a) calling people who merely object to the creeping colonization of the West Bank ‘anti-Semites” or bigots and b) welcoming to Israel far right speakers who say things like ‘the Qur’an is the new Mein Kampf’ and who insincerely profess a new-found love of Israel?
Dear Professor Cole
Finding yourself kicking on the end of a rope because the hangman got the drop wrong is a dead giveaway to being a Nazi loser.
The answer to those three questions are easy:
Question A: There is no basis to deny 2nd Amendment rights to people whose speech is covered by the 1st Amendment. That is to say, “I do not agree with your worldview and find the things you say disgusting” are not justifiable grounds for denying someone the right to purchase a weapon, or to speak their mind freely. Criminal and psychiatric history? Sure. Unpleasant opinions and speech? No. Once you start denying people their constitutional rights based on their thoughts, opinions and speech, it’s a very slippery slope that none of us should ever want to start going down.
Question B: Because she’s an American right wing loser. Once again, a very easy question to answer.
Question C: If they were rational, consistent people, then yes, of course they would be ashamed.
re-read Juan’s Question A and then re-think your answer. Do you believe that the Framers truly wanted to safeguard the rights of gun ownership for people who make it plain that they would readily transpose their hatred (which is, by definition, irrational – or at least reflects diminished rationality – ask your lawyer) to acts of violence?
Likudniks by definition are incapable of feeling shame, in that as in so many things they closely resemble members of the Boere Weerstandsbeweging (scroll down a bit for photos) and indeed the shameless Ms. Geller’s shameless racist Swedish buddies in the SD.
mfi
GUAV – To assert that the 2nd Amendment – where “arms” as understood at the end of the 18th C. were radically different from modern weapons – deserves equal weight as freedom of speech – which is the same issue it was when the 1st Amendment was written – is about as rational as suggesting that the 3rd Amendment has any bearing in the 21st century.
“Free speech” as understood at the end of the 18th C. was also radically different from the modern age of personal printers, email, the internet, television, etc. But that’s completely beside the point. I didn’t write the constitution, nor am I tasked with interpreting it.
My point is that unless (until?) someone has committed a crime, we have no grounds for denying them any of their civil or constitutional rights as they currently exist, and that’s the way it should be.
Unfortunately, we cannot accurately predict who is going to abuse those rights. Most Nazi skinheads do not ever go on shooting rampages, and many seemingly “normal” people who do not espouse violent rhetoric or give prior warning then do.
We don’t get to decide, based on their thoughts and opinions (and ours), who qualifies for rights and who does not. To suggest otherwise is insane and a recipe for disaster.
Yeah, actually we restrict people’s access to things all the time, including run of the mill medicines.
But the easy thing is just to restrict hand guns and semi-automatic weapons in general.
I prefer “deluded” rather than the pejorative “loser”. For example, if you believe the Second Amendment is not now irrelevant and fundamentally as odds with a peaceful democratic society, you are deluded.
Similarly, if you believe that with ready availability, without rigorous controls, automatic weapons, guns in general, and apparently explosive materials, will not get into the hands of people with severe mental problems, you are frighteningly deluded, and may indeed need appropriate medical intervention.
Very sad, especially in the light of the celebration of multiculturalism here in the UK that is Team GB. As one one witty comment on the Guardian website after Britain’s three track and field gold medals on Saturday put it: “A ginger-haired guy, a mixed race woman and a black Muslim walk into a bar. Everyone falls over themselves to buy them a drink.”
Yeah, and you can love Michael Jordan as a media abstraction but still want to deprive the actual blacks in your state of their right to vote because they have a different vision of liberty than you do. What we have gained in theoretically overcoming instant abhorrence of all things non-white, we’ve lost by becoming vastly more selfish and willing to sacrifice other people for the most trivial gains.
Well, vis-a-vis the likudniks: Why on earth would a party who’s roots are based in the Stern Gang and Irgun, both of which openly described themselves as having a National Socialist agenda and courted an alliance with Germany and Italy until 1944(!) feel any shame at hanging out with Nazi Losers? I’m sure for you, uan, I’m belaboring the obvious, but the openly Nazi origins of the Likud are something more people could stand to know about.
It is sad to think that the US military now includes a substantial “skinhead” white supremicist element. Some of the entries in this list could easily apply to a number of well-documented and in some cases well-publicized cases of soldiers who speak of and treat Middle Easterners/Muslims as “sand niggers” and “ragheads”, pose with SS-rune Nazi flags, and celebrate atrocities carried out against helpless villagers as much as any German force running amok on the WWII Eastern Front.
I thought the term was “mud people”? Have we been demoted to “dirt people” now?
It would be interesting to know whether this guy was on the FBI radar, or whether they are preoccupied with threats from Muslims.
See first link in item (2) above. On the FBI domestic terror most-wanted list are left-wing terrorists such as communists, members Animal Liberation Front (AFL) and even the Last Fugitive Vietnam Era [pdf]. Right wing groups criticize FBI’s attempt to criminalize them, see discussion in 2009 – Why is homeland security calling US vets ‘terrorists’? There was a FBI undercover operation which helped overthrow two domestic-terrorism groups in Central Florida.
“The Qur’an as the new Mein Kampf.”
How stupidly funny is that, since it pre-dates Hitler’s rant by about 13-14 centuries? But I’m not surprised, considering the average intelligence and education of those who would say such things.
Not to mention that it isn’t like Mein Kampf, like, at all.
“We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of God, is the best in conduct.”
Yeah, that kind of sentiment is hardcore, all right.