Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aunty mabels cuntwash" data-source="post: 6616" data-attributes="member: 103">Yes, and we all saw how that worked out for people like Rubin Carter and Charles Manson, eh? Amazing what you can achieve when a representative of the state insists to be the case even with no evidence to support it, wouldn't you say? Perverting the course of justice is practically as old as the hills, you may like to re-examine just to what extent &quot;provability&quot; actually plays out in the average courtroom since all too often it comes down not to what is &quot;provable&quot; but whose account of the events is deemed &quot;more credible&quot; based on their standing in the community....and those who would widen the scope of the proposed legislation to include whomsoever they wished to target in the future. Conceivably even yourself. You seem to be forgetting that.Not really, this is where you would find it being applied to anyone and everyone who happened to be wearing that attire. Some who might have legitimate reason to be wearing such attire. Need I remind you about the rights enumerated in the first amendment again?I'm glad you are, but at some point you'll have to either admit the argument is too pure to fuck with or agree to disagree. I've already told you the solution a number of times and am mildly surprised you haven't already leaped at it and embraced it. After all, what point is having the right to bear arms if you're not afforded the right to use them in the pursuit of defending your own interests when they are under threat by an unruly, unlawful mob? I mean outside of a few specialized BDSM kinks they don't really function as sex toys and just leaving them to gather dust in a gun rack or safe while you bleat for less freedom and more government strikes me as being somewhat of a waste.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aunty mabels cuntwash, post: 6616, member: 103"] Yes, and we all saw how that worked out for people like Rubin Carter and Charles Manson, eh? Amazing what you can achieve when a representative of the state insists to be the case even with no evidence to support it, wouldn't you say? Perverting the course of justice is practically as old as the hills, you may like to re-examine just to what extent "provability" actually plays out in the average courtroom since all too often it comes down not to what is "provable" but whose account of the events is deemed "more credible" based on their standing in the community. ...and those who would widen the scope of the proposed legislation to include whomsoever they wished to target in the future. Conceivably even yourself. You seem to be forgetting that. Not really, this is where you would find it being applied to anyone and everyone who happened to be wearing that attire. Some who might have legitimate reason to be wearing such attire. Need I remind you about the rights enumerated in the first amendment again? I'm glad you are, but at some point you'll have to either admit the argument is too pure to fuck with or agree to disagree. I've already told you the solution a number of times and am mildly surprised you haven't already leaped at it and embraced it. After all, what point is having the right to bear arms if you're not afforded the right to use them in the pursuit of defending your own interests when they are under threat by an unruly, unlawful mob? I mean outside of a few specialized BDSM kinks they don't really function as sex toys and just leaving them to gather dust in a gun rack or safe while you bleat for less freedom and more government strikes me as being somewhat of a waste. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification