Much snipped...

On 4/18/24 11:38 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>
>> Mainly, I think our elected officials are too stupid or venal to be
>> allowed to even think about changing the Constitution.

Actually, this is the main thing.

I stand corrected about the gun-owning requirement. Perhaps there was
an earlier Swiss law or perhaps I waa ill-informed.

> As for "We should all be allowed to protect our own lives" ... even if
> you actually shot someone when "protecting" yourself, you'll still find
> yourself in a court room having to prove that it was the only option,
> and most likely come out with some form of criminal record.

I think that would depend on what a "reasonable person" would deem a
threat. A guy with a knife who outweighed me by 100 pounds would
probably be considered a threat and I wouldn't be hauled into court. A
skinny teen with a knife and I'd probably still be OK. I'm amazed at
how much stronger a man is than a same-size woman.

--
Cheers, Bev
"...so she told me it was either her or the ham radio, over."

Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>
>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>>
>>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>>
>>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the >>>>
>>>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>>>
>>>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>>>> other countries similar to it.
>>>>>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >>
>>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>>>> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
>>> violent people easy access to weapons.
>>
>> Like Mexico...
>>
>> Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
>
> With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal 'weapons' are
> impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a short space of time ...
> unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun spraying bullets around.

Mexico has fierce gun laws, and also has plenty of instances of morons
"spraying bullets around."

>>>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to >>
>>>> a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks away. >>
>>>> What should she have done?
>>>> Same as in any modern and evolved country.
>>
>> Bend over and smile?
>>
>> She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night in a
>> "safe" neighborhood.  He jumped into her car.  Perhaps she should have locked
>> her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
>
> A lot of common sense things are alien behaviour in America: owning guns, not
> wearing seatbelts, electing lunatics as the President, not knowing how to spell
> the words like "colour" or "aluminium", ...  :-\
>
>
>
>
>> If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their right to
>> decent treatment.  Perhaps no weapon is required if they are physically
>> threatening.  We should all be allowed to protect our own lives.  Period.
>>
>> -- Cheers, Bev
>>     "People are too stupid to realize they are."
>>                               --JoHn DoH KeLm
>
> The number of people who successfully "protect their own lives" by owning a gun
> is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by the number of innocent people killed or seriuously
> injured by a looney with a gun.

No it's not.

> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people. The
> country needs to obtain some form of common sense.

Are these kids suburban whites?

Am 05.04.24 um 11:42 schrieb Arno Welzel:
> Tamborino, 2024-04-01 02:55:
>
>> This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's
>> update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
>
> RCS *is* end-to-end encrypted. But this is not mandatory, so using
> unencrypted connections is possible. But the Google messaging app in
> Android will show you if the recipient has RCS and also if the
> connection is encrypted.
>
>>
>> Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption
>> is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
>>
>> So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
>> Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android
>> users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security.
>
> But this is not the fault of RCS.

Sure. It is Google's fault.
Secure communication is not possible with RCS and Apple does not want to
adopt such an inferior level of security for iOS to iOS-communication.
With RCS a MIM-attack is always possible. The NSA is already smiling ...

RCS is dead and more than redundant.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Chris wrote:
> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>
>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>
>>> He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
>>
>> No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
>
> You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
>
>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>
>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>
>>> No one needs vigilantes.
>>
>> Self-defense is not vigilantism.
>
> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".

Yes it is.

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  - in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>
>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>
>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>
>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>
> Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
>
>>
>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>
>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>
>>>>> When everyone is carrying a gun
>>>>
>>>> But not everyone carries a gun.
>>>
>>> The simple fact is:
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
>>>
>>> Deal with it.
>>>
>>
>> Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
>> gun?
>>
>> And why the focus on the "developed world"?
>
> Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social
> development, etc.
>
>
>> Mexico has fierce gun laws
>> and a much higher murder rate.
> And there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
>

Poverty doesn't cause crime.

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-15 22:09, Anonymous wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-14 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  - in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
>>>>>>>> charged?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not yet. Here's hoping...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
>>>>>>>>>> actual justice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be
>>>>>>>>>>> prosecuted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why? Civil law is just as important.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that
>>>>>>>> in the criminal system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still evidence of wrongdoing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why should it be any different for Trump?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody is saying it should be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't face
>>>>>>>>> trial. The courts should decide.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he'd just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be pretty street criminal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All politically-motivated persecutions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrites the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How people for that, I don't know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> politically-
>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were
>>>>>>>>>>> desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again,
>>>>>>>>>>> it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how
>>>>>>>>>>> fair
>>>>>>>>>>> society works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly committed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure he has.
>>>>
>>>> No he hasn't.
>>>>
>>>>> It is literally in the indictments.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll give you one example:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the
>>>>> defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE ,
>>>>> in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in
>>>>> the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with
>>>>> intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal
>>>>> the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business
>>>>> records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated
>>>>> February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable
>>>>> Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.'
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a FELONY, doofus.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 33 more listed there.
>>>>
>>>> Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an UNDERLYING
>>>> felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
>>>
>>> You don't understand the law.
>>>
>>> There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
>>>
>>> There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
>>> undertaken in furtherance of.
>>
>> Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
>
> Federal election contribution crimes.

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  - in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>
>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>
>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>
>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>
>
> "Some slut"? As in, ONE person?
>
>
> Found this for you:
>
> 'Weinstein has sexually assaulted at least three women. He was convicted in 2020
> of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and sexually assaulting Miriam Haley,[3]
> a production assistant.[38] In 2022, he was convicted of raping and sexually
> assaulting an unnamed woman[4] who later revealed herself to be Evgeniya
> Chernyshova, a model and actor living in Italy.[39]'
>
> Now let's look at the specific cases.
>
> 'He was convicted in 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and sexually
> assaulting Miriam Haley':
>
> 'The jury found Mr. Weinstein, 67, guilty of raping an aspiring actress, Jessica
> Mann, at a Midtown hotel in 2013, and forcibly performing oral sex on a
> production assistant, Miriam Haley, in his Lower Manhattan apartment in 2006.'

Jessica Mann claims he "raped" her in 2013, but continued to have
sex with him until 2017!

Must have been "horrible" for her!

> 'In 2022, he was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an unnamed woman[4]
> who later revealed herself to be Evgeniya Chernyshova, a model and actor living
> in Italy.[39]'
>
> 'Jurors in December convicted Weinstein of one count of rape and two counts of
> sexual assault against the woman who at the trial’s opening in October gave a
> dramatic and emotional account of him arriving uninvited at her hotel room
> during a 2013 film festival in the run-up to the Oscars, talking his way in and
> assaulting her during a film festival.'
>
> So yes; some years had passed, but not the statute of limitations, right?
>
> And this is three separate women, testifying under oath about three separate
> incidents.
>
>
> And those are just the convictions.
>
>
>
> 'Women who have accused Weinstein of rape include:
>
> Lysette Anthony told British police in October 2017 that Weinstein raped her in
> the late 1980s at her home in London.[119]
>
> Asia Argento told The New Yorker that in 1997, Weinstein invited her into a
> hotel room, "pulled her skirt up, forced her legs apart, and performed oral sex
> on her as she repeatedly told him to stop".[29]
>
> Wedil David, an actress, said that in 2016, Harvey Weinstein raped her in a
> Beverly Hills hotel room.[55]
>
> Paz de la Huerta said Weinstein had raped her on two separate occasions in
> November and December 2010.[56]
>
> Lucia Evans said, after a business meeting in 2004, Weinstein forced her to
> perform oral sex on him.[29]
>
> Hope Exiner d'Amore, a former employee of Weinstein, said he raped her during a
> business trip to New York in the late 1970s.[48]
>
> Miriam "Mimi" Haleyi, a production crew member, said Weinstein forcibly
> performed oral sex on her in his New York City apartment in 2006 when she was in
> her twenties.[120]
>
> Dominique Huett said Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her and then
> carried out another sexual act in front of her.[121]
>
> Natassia Malthe said in 2008, Weinstein barged into her London hotel room at
> night and raped her.[88][122]
>
> Rose McGowan wrote on Twitter that she told the Amazon Studios head Roy Price
> that Weinstein had raped her, but Price ignored this and continued collaborating
> with Weinstein.[123] Price later resigned from his post following sexual
> harassment allegations against him.[124]
>
> Annabella Sciorra said that, in the early 1990s, Weinstein forced himself into
> her apartment, shoved her onto her bed and raped her.[72][125]
>
> Melissa Thompson, a tech entrepreneur, told Sky News Weinstein raped her in his
> hotel room following a business meeting in 2011.[126][127][128]
>
> Wende Walsh, model and aspiring actress said that when she was working as a
> waitress at an Elmwood Avenue bar in the late 1970s, Weinstein begged her for a
> ride and then once inside the car, he sexually assaulted her.[84][116]
>
> An unnamed woman told The New Yorker that Weinstein invited her into a hotel
> room on a pretext, and "forced himself on [her] sexually" despite her protests.[29]
>
> An anonymous woman who works in the film industry says in a civil claim she
> filed in the U.K. in November 2017 that he sexually assaulted her several times
> sometime after 2000.[84]
>
> An unnamed Canadian actress says he sexually assaulted her in 2000. She filed
> suit against him in 2017.[84]
>
> An unnamed actress sued Weinstein for sexual battery and assault, alleging that
> in 2016 he forced her into sex.[129]'
>
>
> That's 17 more women alleging rape.
>
>
> And that is JUST the rape allegations
>
>
> 'Women who said they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by Weinstein include:

On 2024-04-19 17:03:19 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
> On 2024-04-19 08:38, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>> On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>>>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns.
>>
>> Nope. Wrong on both.
>>
>> Swiss law says you *can* own a weapong (with restrictions), but you are
>> not "required to".
>>
>>    If you are a Swiss citizen, you are generally permitted
>>    to own a weapon if:
>>      - you are at least 18 years old.
>>      - you are not subject to a general deputyship or are
>>        represented through a care appointee.
>>      - there is no reason to believe you may use the weapon
>>        to harm yourself or others.
>>
>> The last point of which means you cannot use it to shoot anyone else -
>> so basically pointless owning a gun, unless you're something like a
>> duck hunter.
>
> The purpose being to defend the country from foreign invaders, not
> yourself from somebody invading your private property, or from any sort
> of criminal.
>
> And they get trained.
> ...

The wording of the law does not distinguish any such thing.

On 2024-04-19 14:04, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an
>>>>> UNDERLYING
>>>>> felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
>>>>
>>>> You don't understand the law.
>>>>
>>>> There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
>>>>
>>>> There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
>>>> undertaken in furtherance of.
>>>
>>> Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
>>
>> Federal election contribution crimes.
>
> And Bragg has no authority to prosecute that. He's pulling shit out
> of his ass.

He doesn't need authority to prosecute those crimes.

The statute simply requires that there ARE crimes that the
falsifications of business records were intended to cover up.

You agree that Trump did falsify the records, right?

:-)

On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customer or business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two civil cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in most civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civil case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done
>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally
>>>>>>>>>> wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually
>>>>>>>>>> assaulted one
>>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice,
>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated
>>>>>>>> well by the
>>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the
>>>>>>> truth. LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>
>>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>>
>>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>>
>> Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds
>>>>>> like you'd
>>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and
>>>>>>>>>>> proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to
>>>>>>>>>>> anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable
>>>>>>> men, for one,
>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society
>>>>>> there's no
>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to
>>>>>> be men.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When everyone is carrying a gun
>>>>>
>>>>> But not everyone carries a gun.
>>>>
>>>> The simple fact is:
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
>>>>
>>>> Deal with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
>>> gun?
>>>
>>> And why the focus on the "developed world"?
>>
>> Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth,
>> social development, etc.
>>
>>
>>> Mexico has fierce gun laws
>>> and a much higher murder rate.
>> And there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
>>
>
> Poverty doesn't cause crime.

Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
do to survive.

On 2024-04-19 14:04, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>
>>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>>
>>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>>
>>
>> "Some slut"? As in, ONE person?
>>
>>
>> Found this for you:
>>
>> 'Weinstein has sexually assaulted at least three women. He was
>> convicted in 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and sexually
>> assaulting Miriam Haley,[3] a production assistant.[38] In 2022, he
>> was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an unnamed woman[4]
>> who later revealed herself to be Evgeniya Chernyshova, a model and
>> actor living in Italy.[39]'
>>
>> Now let's look at the specific cases.
>>
>> 'He was convicted in 2020 of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann and
>> sexually assaulting Miriam Haley':
>>
>> 'The jury found Mr. Weinstein, 67, guilty of raping an aspiring
>> actress, Jessica Mann, at a Midtown hotel in 2013, and forcibly
>> performing oral sex on a production assistant, Miriam Haley, in his
>> Lower Manhattan apartment in 2006.'
>
> Jessica Mann claims he "raped" her in 2013, but continued to have
> sex with him until 2017!
>
> Must have been "horrible" for her!
>

Your source for that is...?

>> 'In 2022, he was convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an
>> unnamed woman[4] who later revealed herself to be Evgeniya
>> Chernyshova, a model and actor living in Italy.[39]'
>>
>> 'Jurors in December convicted Weinstein of one count of rape and two
>> counts of sexual assault against the woman who at the trial’s opening
>> in October gave a dramatic and emotional account of him arriving
>> uninvited at her hotel room during a 2013 film festival in the run-up
>> to the Oscars, talking his way in and assaulting her during a film
>> festival.'
>>
>> So yes; some years had passed, but not the statute of limitations, right?
>>
>> And this is three separate women, testifying under oath about three
>> separate incidents.
>>
>>
>> And those are just the convictions.
>>
>>
>>
>> 'Women who have accused Weinstein of rape include:
>>
>> Lysette Anthony told British police in October 2017 that Weinstein
>> raped her in the late 1980s at her home in London.[119]
>>
>> Asia Argento told The New Yorker that in 1997, Weinstein invited her
>> into a hotel room, "pulled her skirt up, forced her legs apart, and
>> performed oral sex on her as she repeatedly told him to stop".[29]
>>
>> Wedil David, an actress, said that in 2016, Harvey Weinstein raped her
>> in a Beverly Hills hotel room.[55]
>>
>> Paz de la Huerta said Weinstein had raped her on two separate
>> occasions in November and December 2010.[56]
>>
>> Lucia Evans said, after a business meeting in 2004, Weinstein forced
>> her to perform oral sex on him.[29]
>>
>> Hope Exiner d'Amore, a former employee of Weinstein, said he raped her
>> during a business trip to New York in the late 1970s.[48]
>>
>> Miriam "Mimi" Haleyi, a production crew member, said Weinstein
>> forcibly performed oral sex on her in his New York City apartment in
>> 2006 when she was in her twenties.[120]
>>
>> Dominique Huett said Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex on her and
>> then carried out another sexual act in front of her.[121]
>>
>> Natassia Malthe said in 2008, Weinstein barged into her London hotel
>> room at night and raped her.[88][122]
>>
>> Rose McGowan wrote on Twitter that she told the Amazon Studios head
>> Roy Price that Weinstein had raped her, but Price ignored this and
>> continued collaborating with Weinstein.[123] Price later resigned from
>> his post following sexual harassment allegations against him.[124]
>>
>> Annabella Sciorra said that, in the early 1990s, Weinstein forced
>> himself into her apartment, shoved her onto her bed and raped
>> her.[72][125]
>>
>> Melissa Thompson, a tech entrepreneur, told Sky News Weinstein raped
>> her in his hotel room following a business meeting in
>> 2011.[126][127][128]
>>
>> Wende Walsh, model and aspiring actress said that when she was working
>> as a waitress at an Elmwood Avenue bar in the late 1970s, Weinstein
>> begged her for a ride and then once inside the car, he sexually
>> assaulted her.[84][116]
>>
>> An unnamed woman told The New Yorker that Weinstein invited her into a
>> hotel room on a pretext, and "forced himself on [her] sexually"
>> despite her protests.[29]
>>
>> An anonymous woman who works in the film industry says in a civil
>> claim she filed in the U.K. in November 2017 that he sexually
>> assaulted her several times sometime after 2000.[84]
>>
>> An unnamed Canadian actress says he sexually assaulted her in 2000.
>> She filed suit against him in 2017.[84]
>>
>> An unnamed actress sued Weinstein for sexual battery and assault,
>> alleging that in 2016 he forced her into sex.[129]'
>>
>>
>> That's 17 more women alleging rape.
>>
>>
>> And that is JUST the rape allegations
>>
>>
>> 'Women who said they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by
>> Weinstein include:
>
> Merely looking at a woman the "wrong" way gets defined as "sexual
> harassment".
>
> (Flushed)
>
>> In all, 127 women have have made the accusations, asshole.
>
> I hope you get rape hoaxed.

127 times and they're ALL hoaxes, snowflake?

On 2024-04-19 19:11:49 +0000, The Real Bev said:

> Much snipped...
>
> On 4/18/24 11:38 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>>
>>> Mainly, I think our elected officials are too stupid or venal to be
>>> allowed to even think about changing the Constitution.
>
> Actually, this is the main thing.
>
> I stand corrected about the gun-owning requirement. Perhaps there was
> an earlier Swiss law or perhaps I waa ill-informed.
>
>> As for "We should all be allowed to protect our own lives" ... even if
>> you actually shot someone when "protecting" yourself, you'll still find
>> yourself in a court room having to prove that it was the only option,
>> and most likely come out with some form of criminal record.
>
> I think that would depend on what a "reasonable person" would deem a
> threat. A guy with a knife who outweighed me by 100 pounds would
> probably be considered a threat and I wouldn't be hauled into court. A
> skinny teen with a knife and I'd probably still be OK. I'm amazed at
> how much stronger a man is than a same-size woman.

Nope. If you harm someone else, no matter what the reason, you're
likely to end up in court on charges ... and in these days of Political
Correctness idiocy, you are the one more likely to go to prison while
the criminal (if still alive) gets off with a warning for being a
nauthy boy. It has happened before. You are the one who purposely
caused harm, they only threatened to.

On 2024-04-19 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
>> people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>
> Are these kids suburban whites?

Watch the racist speak!

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
>>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>
>>>> He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
>>>
>>> No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
>>
>> You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
>>
>>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>
>>>> No one needs vigilantes.
>>>
>>> Self-defense is not vigilantism.
>>
>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
>
> Yes it is.

Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.

Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  - in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>>
>>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>>
>>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>>
>> Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When everyone is carrying a gun
>>>>>
>>>>> But not everyone carries a gun.
>>>>
>>>> The simple fact is:
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
>>>>
>>>> Deal with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
>>> gun?
>>>
>>> And why the focus on the "developed world"?
>>
>> Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social
>> development, etc.
>>
>>
>>> Mexico has fierce gun laws
>>> and a much higher murder rate.
>> And there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
>>
>
> Poverty doesn't cause crime.

When linked to inequality it does.

On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>
>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>
> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
> do to survive.

Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?

--
Cheers, Bev
"There are only two reasons to sit in the back row of an
airplane: Either you have diarrhoea, or you're anxious to
meet people who do." -- Rich Jeni

On 4/19/2024 7:14 PM, Chris wrote:
> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:

Really?

>>>>>
>>>>> No one needs vigilantes.
>>>>
>>>> Self-defense is not vigilantism.
>>>
>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> Nope. It's a pre-meditated act. You're armed with the intention to harm.

Was this intended for rec.humor? If not, can I forward it? It's
fucking hilarious!

--
Stand With Israel!

On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>>
>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>
>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
>> do to survive.
>
> Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
>
>

You really ARE a racist, aren't you?

On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>>
>>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
>>> do to survive.
>>
>> Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
>>
>>
>
> You really ARE a racist, aren't you?

End of "discussion".

--
Cheers, Bev
Election 2016:
There's never been a better time to vote libertarian.

On 2024-04-19 22:19, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>>>
>>>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
>>>> do to survive.
>>>
>>> Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
>
> End of "discussion".
>
>

Coward.

On 2024-04-20 00:01, Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 17:03:19 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
>> On 2024-04-19 08:38, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>>> On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>>>>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns.
>>>
>>> Nope. Wrong on both.
>>>
>>> Swiss law says you *can* own a weapong (with restrictions), but you
>>> are not "required to".
>>>
>>>    If you are a Swiss citizen, you are generally permitted
>>>    to own a weapon if:
>>>      - you are at least 18 years old.
>>>      - you are not subject to a general deputyship or are
>>>        represented through a care appointee.
>>>      - there is no reason to believe you may use the weapon
>>>        to harm yourself or others.
>>>
>>> The last point of which means you cannot use it to shoot anyone else
>>> - so basically pointless owning a gun, unless you're something like a
>>> duck hunter.
>>
>> The purpose being to defend the country from foreign invaders, not
>> yourself from somebody invading your private property, or from any
>> sort of criminal.
>>
>> And they get trained.
>> ...
>
> The wording of the law does not distinguish any such thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBDK-QNZkM

Why the Swiss Love Their Guns (more than Americans)
Johnny Harris

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 4/19/24 11:08 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 22:19, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they need to
>>>>> do to survive.
>>>>
>>>> Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
>>>
>>> You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
>>
>> End of "discussion".
>
> Coward.

'Racist' is the modern version of 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' and signals the end
of the discussion. Surely you remember this convention...

--
Cheers, Bev
I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid people, I'm just
saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem
sort itself out.

On 2024-04-20, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/24 11:08 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 22:19, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they
>>>>>> need to do to survive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball
>>>>> shoes?
>>>>
>>>> You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
>>>
>>> End of "discussion".
>>
>> Coward.
>
> 'Racist' is the modern version of 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' and signals the
> end of the discussion. Surely you remember this convention...

Racist bitch actually thinks this is her Get Out of Jail Free card. 🤣

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2024-04-20 08:57, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 4/19/24 11:08 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-19 22:19, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-19 20:25, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/24 3:02 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 14:03, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poverty doesn't cause crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poverty leads to desperation, and desperate people do what they
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>> do to survive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like steal couches, big-screen TVs and overpriced basketball shoes?
>>>>
>>>> You really ARE a racist, aren't you?
>>>
>>> End of "discussion".
>>
>> Coward.
>
> 'Racist' is the modern version of 'Nazi' or 'Hitler' and signals the end
> of the discussion.  Surely you remember this convention...
>

Look up "dog whistle"...

....then explain why you chose "overpriced basketball shoes".

On 2024-04-18 21:11, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal
>> 'weapons' are impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a
>> short space of time ... unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun
>> spraying bullets around.
>
> Black swan event.  Other ways of mass killing that don't involve guns.
> Some think that the Islamist anti-Westerners have already won just
> because they made us change the way we live, travel etc.

There have already been a lot of your "black swan events" in the USA.

Care to guess how many shootings with more than 4 victims there have
been already this year?