It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Virginia has gone anti human

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree that the kid with the bb gun is doing something that upsets some, it is not against the law. The cop should try to teach them not to upset people, not arrest the kid as this law says.

edit on 12 2 2019 by beyondknowledge because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: beyondknowledge

What is in part three is the fact that it requires an intent to intimidate. In other words they're intentionally attempting to suppress the rights of other people.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: beyondknowledge

It is not unlawful to defend yourself and your family. I guess some discretion is required in this day and age. The prime rule is natural selection. The strong will survive and evolve long term.

You are hear so you know there is a lot of conflict, lies and deception going on. What I like about Jesus is the truth. He got crucified, Julian Assange put it on the line for reality. Roger Stone got locked up about talking about it. # u ASIO if you want to lock me up. You will have to drug me up to stop saying you supported 9/11.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

How exactly is it to be determined what is in the alledged perpetrators thoughts at the time. How many times have you said “That is not what I meant.”
edit on 12 2 2019 by beyondknowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

This is from the bill.

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder;


Why is that bad?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: beyondknowledge

The same way intent is believed with any other crime, via evidence at a trial.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: Xcalibur254

How exactly is it to be determined what is in the alledged perpetrators thoughts were at the time. How many times have you said “That is not what I meant.”

If someone tells you they plan to blow up a building and you teach them how to make the bomb you can reasonably be assumed to know what they will do.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: beyondknowledge

It is not unlawful to defend yourself and your family.

It actually is in 12 states I believe, but that has nothing to do with this bill.

In some states you have a duty to flee, which means you need to gather your family and try to run and hope you don't die in the process.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is not in part 3. That is the problem. Too broad an application on this add on to an existing law.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254



You can still teach someone how to shoot, or martial arts, or whatever.


A lot of online sources are not interoperating SB64 that way. If I was a Judge one a bench I would have a hard time interpreting this law as it is written that way as well. Combine this with with SB16 and the message from the legislator is shut up and die.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: beyondknowledge

How do they determine intent in a murder trial?

How do they determine intent in a defamation case?

Intent plays a large role in the criminal justice system. It's the same thing here.
edit on 12/2/2019 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons


So someone tries to assault you, you try and defend yourself. This may hurt or possibly kill the assailant. Why are you bad?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: kwakakev

This is from the bill.

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder;


Why is that bad?


I guess Virginia is going to close all the National Guard training facilities and Police Academies SINCE WHAT THEY DO IS TRAIN FOR VIOLENT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. The law seems to make no differentiation or exclusion for state sacntioned terrorism, er training to stop, contain or engage those persons causing the 'civil disobedience'.

Yeah, it's ridiculous statement I know. Study up on unintended consequences.
Also, INTENT is in the eye of the beholder (complainant, officer) - you see this a lot in the UK/EU....
And, "You may beat the rap, but you're still going to take the ride."

ganjoa



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: beyondknowledge

What is in part three is the fact that it requires an intent to intimidate. In other words they're intentionally attempting to suppress the rights of other people.

What if there is a gang and you assemble in an attempt to intimidate the gang and stop illegal activity? I actually think 3 is too broad.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254



intent


Self defence is not about intent. It is learning skills to react to an immediate situation. There are already plenty of laws and processes to clean up the mess afterwards. Telling people that that cannot even learn how do defend themselves is painting a big red target on their back by the state.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

That's because a lot of people on the internet are alarmists. Once again, the part of 18.2-433.2 that you, and all the fearmongers on the internet, are taking issue with has been on the books since 1987.

Up until 5 months ago I had lived my entire life in Virginia. There were tons of places to learn martial arts. There was even a place about half an hour away that taught survival skills, primarily to contractors that were traveling to the Middle East.

So clearly your interpretation of the law is wrong considering these businesses have been able to exist despite the fact that this has been a law for over 30 years.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is covered in the existing law. Why expand this law to anyone in a parade with cigarettes and matches. That is what the proposed part 3 is about.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The section that uses the term intent is not in the section that you are, wrongly, taking issue with. It is only in the third section which applies to a group using weapons to intimidate other people.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Guardian Angels have done a pretty good job at intimidating criminals while not being armed.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

You call me obtuse while talking about 1987? AAAAHHHHHhhhhhhh




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join