XPost: sac.politics, alt.california, ca.politics   
   XPost: ny.politics, nyc.politics   
   From: Intelligent@savetheworldmsn.com   
      
   On 5/23/2021 12:48 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Bump   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)