RE: Nazis hate being called Nazis according to Washington Post/Operation Mockingbird propaganda

So, anything you disagree with is somehow a "Projection."

Nope, just the parts that I said were projection are projection. You were saying that I was doing that which you were doing. That is called projection.

You seem to take all my statements out of context too and simply make excuses. You stated "isn't that what is motivating you to want to disarm your law abiding countrymen?" I never stated that, nor do I have any intent on taking away the public's 2nd amendment rights as you claimed.

You didn't have to state it, when you attributed fear to another as a motivation you made me think that it was your motivation, so I asked you if that was your motivation. So you don't want to disarm anyone, you are just supporting those who do, what gun laws are you calling for exactly?

I grew up in a family full of guns, so I have no problem with law abiding citizens right to bear arms. I probably owned more than a dozen 22 rifles as a kid, and target shooting was something we often did as a past time.

And yet you seem to be supporting people who would make it hard for other people to enjoy the sport.

As for my remarks regarding freedom of speech, they're definitely not a straw as you claimed, nor did I claim you made those statements. My intent was to clarify what freedom of speech entails.
In regards to your statements " so Google knows what is true and what is not and gets to be the arbiter of truth?" and "Google is in no position to decide what is true or not nor should they be." -
Google doesn't have to be the arbiter of truth, this is why I clarified earlier that an opinion is not news and vice versa. That should have been clear enough to see the difference. News is the claim of an event, and those making such claims should have evidence to back them up, or they're clearly not a source of reputable news. The point here, either something happened or it didn't, and if people are going to make wild claims about events, they probably should make an effort to back up those claims. Just as I cited several sources in response to you.
And yes, Google does have the right to decide what is true or false, what is deemed as hate speech, or harassment on their own platforms. Its their property, and their right to decide what the rules are. If others don't like it, that's just too bad. People have a right to decide the rules and use of their own property. Its the same as going into someone elses home. You may not like the rules, but its their property, and people should respect it or leave.

Once again I am very confused, I am sure I didn't make any claim otherwise. I suggested that we ought to change that, like we have for other businesses.

In regards to this statement: "And you get to decide what constitutes hate speech right?"
Yes, that's correct, on Google+ I do. My moderators have kicked likely more than a half million people over the last 6 years. We have rules of conduct for a reason. If people cannot treat others with the same level of dignity and respect they would expect for themselves, then they have no business being on social media. The public's use of platforms like G+ and youtube are a privilege, not right.
I personally kicked out 5,000 people last month alone, most of them were posting spam, and a lot of it was scams for fake cryptocurrency ICO's.

you seem really proud of that, how many did you feel were "hate speech"?

in regards to this statement: "But that is OK when Google or CNN or the government does that right?" No, its not. In fact, I've been very critical of Google over the years. Its particularly bad when the people who represent your brand turn against you. I've definitely gone off on Google more times than I can count. No one gets a free ride on Google+, and Google itself is no exception. If anything, they're very careful not to cross my path.

must be nice to have a position that makes you more equal than others. So what was Abe Lincoln's political party?

in regards to this statement: "There is loads of gun related violence and murder there [St Louis], almost none of it perpetrated by legal gun owners.
Wrong! A lot of those gang members buy their firearms legally. Due to a bad system of checks and balances they're able to get their hands on guns pretty easily. Likewise, a lot of the perpetrators of gun violence here are often given a slap on the wrist and released back out into the public so they can commit more violence. There's clearly not enough accountability.

"lot of those gang members buy their firearms legally" C'mon, that's absurd, most gang members are not even 21 and not a goddamned one of them makes it to 21 with a clean criminal record. Most gangs won't even let you join unless you have a criminal record. How could you make such a crazy claim?

"a lot of the perpetrators of gun violence here are often given a slap on the wrist and released back out into the public so they can commit more violence."
That is what the problem is, one of the problems anyhow, if you want an effective policy that reduces gun crime then you will target those who commit gun crime. A highly effective policy is to lock up gun criminals for long periods, while they are in prison they cannot commit gun crimes. That is a policy that works really well, unlike background checks, waiting periods, buybacks, racist permitting schemes and assault weapons bans and gun free zones, policies that don't work. That policy works well because it actually addresses the minute fraction of the population who commits gun crimes, gun criminals.

I also gave you several examples of people legally purchasing guns to commit violence (Sandy Hook, Florida, and Las Vegas tragedies). There's just no denying that a large amount of gun related violence results from legally obtained firearms. But you prefer to deny this.

The shooter did not legally purchase his guns in the sandy hook incident, and of course " a large amount of gun related violence results from legally obtained firearms" is totally false, a few high profile incidents does not a large amount make, the vast majority of gun homicides are committed with illegal guns, because the media is pushing an anti gun narrative they only focus on incidents where legal guns were used, those incidents are the exception rather than the rule.

In regards to this statement: "So doesn't that prove how foolish the background check system is?" Exactly my point! But people like yourself would rather turn the prospect of gun reform into an assault on the rights of guns owners, which simply isn't true. Gun reform does not mean taking peoples guns away, especially from law abiding citizens.

So you want to get rid of the background check system as well?

My argument regarding guns is that the right to bear arms should be reserved for law abiding citizens, not mentally deranged individuals like the lady who shot up YouTube's headquarters yesterday.

So, we should have the policy we already have? Or what changes would you like to see exactly? How do we stop her? Let me get this right, if we had made it so she couldn't get a gun legally then that shooting would not have happened? CA gun laws were not strict enough, what other laws do they need there?

Its the fear mongering NRA that keeps pushing this narrative that the world is out to destroy our gun rights, and people should stop listening to their lies.

And you consider that the truth right? is that the official Google truth or your personal version?
The NRA does not have to do anything, did the NRA make the NYT publish Stevens calling to amend the constitution to remove the 2nd amendment and to ban all semi auto arms? Did the NRA make democrat lawmakers have a sit in in congress against civil rights? Did the NRA make the AG in my state declare everyone who legally purchased an AR or AK over the last 20 years a felon? Did the NRA send me a letter saying they would lock me up if I bought a bump stock? did the NRA put those little anti gun puppets on every MSM TV show and publication?
Tell me about the NRA's lies, where do you hear them? What are their lies? Do you delete their lies from google when you can?

in regards to this statement: "LOL so you blame that slightly damaged wall on free speech?"
The point was that misinformation on the web can have real-world negative consequences, and I provided examples to prove this.

The misinformation didn't make that guy crazy.

Again, Freedom of Speech does not mean the freedom to harass and threaten others.

I don't understand why you even said it the first time, I never said any different did it?

But unfortunately there are bad people in this world who do bad things. To say their should be no accountability for ones actions would be ignorant at best.

That's funny, you were just blaming misinformation for it.

Its freedom of speech, not freedom to lie through ones teeth.

But it's OK when google does it right?