jimbo

I'm pretty much the same. Cats are terrible creatures and I would never intentionally own one. But I'm not going to hold it against my partner's two cats that they are cats, so they get scritches and nap times with me.

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 most ridiculous reason, the one you seem stuck on, is that he was threatening a group of kids.

Why? What does it do to further his argument? What does he gain?

Why don't you spend some time applying some of that critical thinking to why he would threaten a group of kids?

How is someone going to be compensated for their creative work if anyone can come along and just make copies of it? Copyright prevents people from just making copies of other people's work. You want to do away with copyright, thus removing that protection and severely hindering the ability of anyone to make money from creative works.

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 don't actually know what abolish means?

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 your link says, 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.

edit

All that said, your link isn't relevant to this situation anyway. The definition of brandishing is mentioned specifically in the context of someone who possesses a weapon "during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime". (see 18 USC 924(c)(1) and (c)(4)). This guy was not in the middle of committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking, thus the brandishing definition does not apply.

That's not a particularly relevant example. If you and I were having a discussion about one's right to self-defense, and I ask you "like by carrying a knife", and you say "yes, in fact I'm carrying a knife right now" and you show me, I'm not going to feel threatened. (Which is actually exactly what happened in this instance.)

You're making a distinction without a difference. Nobody has any fucking clue who their "genetic match" will be nor does anyone have any fucking clue who else is using 23andMe. Sharing that information with other 23andMe users is not meaningfully different than just sharing it with the world at large.