Im pretty much the same. I would never intentionally own a cat. They are terrible creatures. But I’m not going to hold it against my partners two cats that they are cats.

Why? What does it do to further his argument? What does he gain? Consider the reasons why someone would choose to unconceal their firearm. It shouldn’t be a fashion piece to just show off.

For any number of reasons, the most obvious and likely of which is that he was simply emphasizing his point about carrying a weapon for self-defense. The least likely and highly ridiculous reason, the one you seem stuck on, is that he was threatening a group of kids.

How is someone going to be compensated for their work if anyone can come along and just make copies of it?

I assume to emphasize the point about having a weapon to defend oneself. You don’t have to agree with that point, but you don’t get to automatically jump to it being some kind of threat.

Maybe you can point out where I said what you claimed I said.

I guess I’ll just reply with your own comment:

It isn’t about what the charges are it is about what people think. If we redefined the crime of murder as “foo” and charged people the same way it isn’t like murder went away.

Whatever value copyright was supposed to give us it has failed to do so. Abolish it.

Maybe you can point out where I said what you claimed I said.

I guess I’ll just reply with your previous comment:

It isn’t about what the charges are it is about what people think. If we redefined the crime of murder as “foo” and charged people the same way it isn’t like murder went away.

** Whatever value copyright was supposed to give us it has failed to do so. Abolish it.**

care to explain how calling attention to being armed, isn’t on some level intended to shock or scare school kids?

Yes, ffs, just go watch the video. I shouldn’t even have to explain this. He said something about self-defense, some kid goes “like carrying a gun”? He says “yes, in fact I’m carrying right now” and briefly revealed the gun on his side. A reasonable person would interpret that as him demonstrating that he does the thing that he himself advocates for. Nobody felt threatened by that. This group of kids didn’t gasp at seeing the gun and run away. They didn’t even take a step back. They stood there and kept arguing with him.

Simply opening his jacket was “using” in that sense. “I’m armed right now!! [SEE?]” there was absolutely zero reason, as far as legitimate policy arguments go, that flashing that pistol bolstered… and a reasonable belief, by members of this group, that he was indeed threatening them

lol, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. I already explained the reason why he showed it and covered why it’s obvious that no one standing there felt threatened.

Will this guy get off because “i didn’t mean it that way?” Absolutely. because he’s rich(ish), white, and in a conservative stronghold that likes this sort bullshit.

He’ll get off because he didn’t do anything that anyone could even make a plausible argument is illegal. (Sorry, but your arguments here are all implausible at best.)

You want to do away with copyright. Maybe think a bit harder about the implications of the things you think you want.

I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point. Like I said, simply showing someone a weapon is not brandishing. There has to be an intent to intimidate. The video of this interaction makes it plainly obvious that there was no intention on the part of this politician to intimidate anyone.

How is it that you can cite that and yet your brain competely glosses over that there was obviously no attempt to intimidate anyone in this instance?