XPost: ny.politics, nyc.politics   
   From: seaviews7@yahoo.com   
      
   https://state.usconcealedonline.com/washington/?c=13286&clck=245   
   10212&s1=201446&s2=276&s3=7fd60df5ac39848a69adde326163b8be&s4=&s5=   
      
   On 5/23/2021 12:48 AM, Intelligent Party scribbled:   
   > 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-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)