XPost: talk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, alt.survival   
   From: klausschadenfreude-nospam@null.net   
      
   On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:57:50 +1000, de chucka    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 14/04/2017 9:40 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:37:58 +1000, de chucka    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 13/04/2017 8:26 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:57:59 +1000, de chucka    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 12/04/2017 8:30 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 07:01:38 +1000, de chucka    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 9/04/2017 11:42 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:16:08 +1000, de chucka    
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't explain how a permit would allow her to legally carry a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> weapon through the TSA checkpoint, though.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't but if she had it she wouldn't have been charged.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Yes, she would have. See the law I quoted above.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Did she will-fully and knowingly carry it in?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Doesn't matter.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Does according to Georgian law and Arizona law   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Too bad. We're talking federal law here. You lose again.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Please State the law   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I already did that once for you. How many times do I need to do it?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Message-ID:    
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why are you so fucking stupid?   
   >>>   
   >>> but that shows intent is needed, hey you've proved yourself wrong. WELL   
   >>> DONE rubes   
   >>>>   
   >>   
   >> You need to read it again.   
   >   
   >Read it again still shows intent is needed, hey you've proved yourself   
   >wrong. WELL DONE rubes   
      
   Since you are obviously unable to comprehend the King's English, let   
   me try to explain it to you.   
      
   A person may not knowingly and willfully enter, in violation of   
   security requirements prescribed under section 44901, 44903(b) or (c),   
   or 44906 of this title, an aircraft or an airport area that serves an   
   air carrier or foreign air carrier.   
      
   She knew she was armed. Therefore, she did it KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY.   
      
   Furthermore, you don't just say, "Oh, sorry, I didn't do this   
   willfully" and then they go, "Oh, well, off you go, then!"   
      
   You are CHARGED. Doesn't mean you're guilty, but you are CHARGED.   
      
   You claimed that a permit would allow her to LEGALLY carry the weapon   
   there.  That prompted my question, to wit:   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't explain how a permit would allow her to legally carry a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> weapon through the TSA checkpoint, though.   
      
   To which you finally responded   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't but if she had it she wouldn't have been charged.   
      
   You STILL can't explain why a STATE permit would prevent her from   
   being CHARGED under FEDERAL law. There was no talk about "intent" at   
   that time you were fabricating your lie. You said she wouldn't be   
   CHARGED because of the permit- a bizarre claim you STILL can't   
   explain.   
      
   Why?   
      
   Because you don't think. At all.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)