All a police officer has to do, is ask do if someone has any--- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
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.
|Nodes:||5 (0 / 5)|