Bump

On 5/23/2021 12:50 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