XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics   
   XPost: alt.abortion, talk.abortion   
   From: Intelligent@savetheworldmsn.com   
      
   All a police officer has to do, is ask do if someone has any malintentions with   
   these weapons?  If "no," they are 100% legal.   
      
   It's just simply not wrong to possess a weapon.  It's not wrong as a matter of   
   fact and scientific unadulterated truth.  Possession of weapons is not wrong.   
   It's   
   fact.  Those who believe democracy authors the law, don't believe in the law at   
   all, so how can they advocate such law?  They believe in democracy, but not in   
   the   
   law.  And why would one believe in democracy, or the republic, and not science,   
   truth, god and man?   
      
   "Thug life" is what anti-gunners validly have a grievance against.  "Thug life"   
   writes songs about blowing each other away, echoing their un-civilization,   
   whilst   
   glorifying it.  So the valid grievance would be to persecute gangsters who have   
   guns, if malintent is what it is.  Then, it's not legal to be in a gang, and   
   you   
   could persecute gangsters period for their malintent, but you could persecute   
   gangsters who have guns all the more.  But if people don't have malintentions,   
   possession of weapons is not illegal.  They can be very upstanding advocates of   
   liberty, respect and justice, and have all the guns in the world - in their   
   car.   
   It's like bolt cutters and lock picking sets are 100% legal, unless one's   
   caught   
   with them in a "Catsuit" at 1:00am or there's suspicion of malintention.   
   Gainfully   
   employed people don't commit petty burglary, and their bolt cutters and lock   
   picking sets are generally not suspicious.  Same with terrorists and   
   gasoline.  We   
   all have gasoline, but terrorists are suspected of malintention, while good   
   people   
   drive around with extra gasoline cans on the back of their Jeeps.  So if you   
   agree   
   with this legal theory of malintention by itself being enough to condemn for   
   crime.  Otherwise there's nothing at all, and you'll have to find holistic   
   solutions, - increase the wealth, decrease the population, share the poverty   
   equally.   
      
   Massacres have nothing to do with it, are 100% a red herring, are committed by   
   poor unemployed upset students, and the like, and merely require a crowd.    
   100% of   
   the people who commit massacres have no criminal record and got their guns   
   before   
   mal-activity.  Once one commits a massacre, there's not a second offense.    
   Guns,   
   vehicles, knives will all do the same for massacres.  It's crap to say it's   
   okay   
   to ban guns for massacres, because that's a non-argument.  It's crap to say   
   it's   
   okay to ban guns for no reason, as it's crap to say, it's a crime to be   
   Jewish. It   
   truly is prejudice and abhorrent.  People who enforce such laws are scum.  And   
   I   
   don't agree to give my name to buy a gun.   
      
   There is not a right to ban guns for no reason, or because people who bear guns   
   are different than you.   
      
   The rules of self-defense and engagement, need to be better identified, but   
   fearing a big man is what fearing a gun is, and anyone can throw rocks at   
   anyone's   
   head.   
      
   People do keep and bear guns for sport and hobby.  There's nothing wrong with   
   being an aficionado, an enthusiast, or a gun lover.  When to use the gun,   
   against   
   another person, is the question.  Not because they threw popcorn or water on   
   you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)