• Replace Gun Prohibitions With Persecution Of Malintentions

    From Intelligent Party@Intelligent@savetheworldmsn.com to sac.politics,ca.general,alt.california,ca.politics,ny.politics,nyc.politics on Sun May 23 00:48:22 2021
    From Newsgroup: nyc.politics

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
  • From tesla sTinker@seaviews7@yahoo.com to ca.general,ny.politics,nyc.politics on Sat Jun 12 19:39:26 2021
    From Newsgroup: nyc.politics

    https://state.usconcealedonline.com/washington/?c=13286&clck=245910212&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.
    --- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113