Discussion:
Replace Gun Prohibitions With Persecution Of Malintentions
(too old to reply)
Intelligent Party
2021-05-23 07:50:28 UTC
Permalink
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.
Intelligent Party
2021-09-04 19:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Intelligent Party
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
Intelligent Party
2021-10-21 21:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Intelligent Party
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

Loading...