Redpill me on what Article 13 is again?

Sargon made a good video of it
https://youtu.be/2QLFiYNHbAM

Lol, you know something is bad when conservatives and green party people are uniting to stop it.

Speaking of Europe, something I recently saw which might be of some small interest: I was looking at an "Exchange & Mart" magazine printed in England in 1870, and it had a goodly section for guns and back then you could just send guns through the post as you pleased. Most of the guns advertised were smooth bore and rifled percussion cap muzzle loaders, and a few metallic cartridge breech loaders.

Quite a few people offered to swap hunting dogs or livestock for guns, and guns for livestock/dogs. One man was offering Goats, sheep, hens and rabbits in exchange for a small bore rifle.

Sadly, from what I can gather, the British government suddenly decided liberal gun laws were a problem after WW1 when they thought a Communist revolution may happen so they gradually started restricting guns for civilians with the Dunblaine Massacre resulting in a handgun ban for pretty much everyone.

Huh, I didn't know that. I looked it up on Wikipedia and I see that also in 1937 self-defense was ruled out as an reason for owning a gun. As long as the rich have their shotguns I suppose it's all right. There is a gun shop about 10 to 15 minutes walk away from where I live, full of shotguns.

Also, It's interesting that the Hungerford massacre repose legislation *didn't* target semi-automatic pistols. Also reading about the amount of pistols handed in after Dunblane, it seems like firearms ownership wasn't very common in the UK. I suppose that unlike in the United states, rare indeed is the person here who has enough land to plink away in their yard and hunting is for the wealthy.

Also, if you like fennecs, my fursona used to be a fennec and I had a few commissions of it e.g: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/14551383/

Cute thanks. Regarding guns, I didn't know that it was decided that self defence isn't a reason to have one that early (my stance is that it's a perfectly good reason to own one, especially considering how useless the police seem to have been in a lot of cases lately).

>But people still compare the US to 1930s Germany and random people on the internet to Nazis.

I don't know what Article 13 (in this context) is, but it doesn't matter.
maybe people see parallels with 1930s Germany because of all the fucking white supremacists popping up everywhere and the president threatening political opponent(s) with prison, the same president selectively admitting admiration for horrible dictators and abusers of human rights all over the world and MANY MANY other factors
or maybe you get all your news from FOX or worse?

Sounds like you get all your news from the people who threatened to dox a shitposter from Reddit.

Hmm...I sense a shitposter

A nazi wouldn't hobble the federal government. The government, huge, unquestionable and aggressive was the primary weapon of nazi germany.

Trump seems strongly to dislike many aspects of the federal government. He might be fuddy duddy, but he is not a Hitler 2.0 for a plethora of reasons, and if he was, timeline wise, the democrats would be a banned party and 2020 elections would be suspended.

QC, we're talking about real threats. White supremacists are more vocal, but their numbers are likely actually fewer than in the 90s.

>QC, we're talking about real threats. White supremacists are more vocal, but their numbers are likely actually fewer than in the 90s.

even if they are just more vocal, that is a bad sign.
but you really think there aren't more people who consider themselves alt-right, for example?
wikipedia says:

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] grouping of white supremacists/white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates and other far-right[2][3][4] fringe hate groups.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

I don't think it's more pressing than the internet getting hacked to bits.

You will never get rid of all the racist groups. Germany has every law imaginable against this, and a war, occupation and reconstruction to purge them of this... And they still have marching skinheads. It's a low level omnipresent threat, like botulism.

The internet habging by one piece of legislation is something we can actually do something about.

>I don't know what Article 13 (in this context) is, but it doesn't matter.
I meant this literally, in that I don't know what Article 13 is. at all.
I just meant to comment about people comparing the USA to Germany.

I'm sorry if this was confusing.

[or disruptive]

As the old joke goes, 'If it weren't for government infiltrators there would be no neo-nazis, hells angels, or KKK in the US.'

It's just chicken-little news conglomerates overreporting stories to generate outrage and therefore traffic.

Why would you need the internet when you have state approved media outlets ?