*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/st...780203520?s=20
Here's an uplifting story for spoon. 8chan went down and frenworld is banned, so I expect him back any second now.

Now that we know he's criminally insane, we can strip him of rights and put him in jail.
Until he was a criminal, there was no reason to treat him like one. Now that he is, there is reason to.

Making kill and rape lists, being on psychotropic medication and showing psychopathic tendencies is "no reason." He literally has to commit mass murder before we take his mass murder weapon away?
If someone has a knife in their hand and says: I will fucking stab you! - Are you going to take their knife away, or will you insist that they have every right to hold on to that knife until they stab someone? What is this?

And I still don't understand your take. You fully acknowledge that guns are not going to help you fight a government successfully, but you want private citizens to have literal weapons of mass destruction for the sole purpose of fighting perceived tyranny unsuccessfully. That is terrorism. Your argument for why private citizens should own nuclear weapons is that so they can be used for terrorist attacks.
I know this is a meme that the gun lobby some-fucking-how successfully planted into american brains, but for anyone who's not part of the cult this is like reading timecube theory. It doesn't make any sense.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Making kill and rape lists, being on psychotropic medication and showing psychopathic tendencies is "no reason." He literally has to commit mass murder before we take his mass murder weapon away?

Sorry, I know literally nothing about this event that isn't posted in this thread, so I was unaware of the background of this criminal.

If this history you've put forward is legit, then I feel that there was plenty of reason to mark this person as unfit for owning any form of firearm.

My argument is that what we need is the regulatory body which is empowered and enabled to make those kinds of calls, and to leave the non-criminal / mentally stable people alone.

If someone has a knife in their hand and says: I will fucking stab you! - Are you going to take their knife away, or will you insist that they have every right to hold on to that knife until they stab someone? What is this?

If anything, I'm saying that if someone is trying to kill me with a knife, then I have the right to defend myself with a gun, even if I don't want to own a gun.
Personally, if someone threatens to stab me with a knife, I'm calling the police while I get as far away from that situation as possible.

It is already illegal to threaten my well-being with or without a weapon, though the penalties are more severe if they use a weapon.
I'm not opposed to that law in any way.

And I still don't understand your take.

That's fine. I'm no legal expert. I only know that I hold a couple of ideals very tightly, and right at the top is the presumption of innocence.

You fully acknowledge that guns are not going to help you fight a government successfully

Not quite. Really close, but not quite what I'm saying.

Fighting a government with guns can be done quite successfully. Defeating them with guns is unlikely at best.

But really... that's not the core of my argument, so giving it all this attention when we should really be talking about the presumption of innocence is missing the point.

but you want private citizens to have literal weapons of mass destruction for the sole purpose of fighting perceived tyranny unsuccessfully.

I don't want anyone to have a gun. I do not own a gun, nor do I want to own a gun. Still, I demand the right to make that choice.
I want people to have that right.

I don't want people to be attacked by a government.
I want people whom are being attacked to not be neutered into a slaughter which the attacker has no contest or culpability for enacting.

I want to begrudgingly admit that humans are still committing genocides on a regular basis, even in Europe (I know, right?), and that pretending otherwise is choosing ignorance.

But, again, this is not central to my position, so it's not worth spending too much time on.

That is terrorism. Your argument for why private citizens should own nuclear weapons is that so they can be used for terrorist attacks.
I know is is a meme that the gun lobby some-fucking-how successfully planted into american brains, but for anyone who's not part of the cult this is like reading timecube theory. It doesn't make any sense.

Let it go. That's not my point at all. That's your invented bogeyman's argument.

My point is:
The presumption of innocence is probably the best idea ever to gain widespread popularity among humans around the world.
It's a good one.
Maybe the best one.

Let's keep that in mind as a top priority in all things. Let's inject fairness to good people into the world.
Nature is not fair. Nature rewards bad behavior, thievery, murder, etc. We choose to be different. We choose to impose fairness to good people.
I think that's of the utmost importance, because when we stray from that ideal, the leaders whom lead us astray are the most dangerous humans who've ever lived.