Rofl. Ok, I’ll reply once to your walrusing, but this is it.
You applied US law standards to a foreign nation. Intent, commonality of gun ownership.
This is a foreign nation with their own very strict gun and drug laws. This is very common in 3rd world tourism based countries, particularly island countries. It’s to keep their country controlled and safe, which is essential for the tourism industry. And many of these countries have devastating drug cartel histories, though I don’t know this particular countries history with them.
But yeah, this is all about your gun rights to be careless with your firearms and ammunition, and your rights to travel to other countries and disrespect their laws.
I’m not going to spell out how this is all related to “accountability” because it’s abundantly obvious.
And your victimized take on my pulling your political affiliation is rich, given your words I was replying to:
Just because you personally disagree with the 100 million gun owners doesn’t make this a moderate take. Imprisoning people for years because of a loose round in luggage is moronic politically and a waste of tax money.
But I guess not wanting to be accountable for your own words tracks.
I have never said anything about gun rights in relation to this case at all. I was suggesting that the other posters extremist views stem not from applying reason but instead from their prejudiced political views against guns. Just like your posts can’t get around your prejudice about my political views.
Regarding the actually substantive part of your reply: I am not simply applying US law standards in my argument. Intent is a globally recognized legal standard that actually stems from British common law and applies in T+C law as well.
I agree with most of the rest of what you said here about why their laws exist, but the application of it to these tourists in a tourism focused economy is wrong. This is at the end of the day a customs issue. Imprisoning a vacationing grandmother for 2 loose rounds would be insanity.
In your previous post you offered nothing substantive at all. You literally searched my post history to see if I was a member of any groups against which you’re prejudiced so you could feel better about dismissing my arguments without actually addressing them. That’s pathetic.
And again as far as accountability goes, I never suggested they shouldn’t be held accountable. Only that the years long prison sentences are absurd given the facts.
Ahh yes, the “how dare they hold him accountable for his own actions” take.
Imagine my surprise when I quickly found you self identify as a libertarian.
Shocking.
Show me where I said that they shouldn’t hold him accountable? Or the others, including the grandma?
But yeah sure make it about political beliefs instead of facts.
Rofl. Ok, I’ll reply once to your walrusing, but this is it.
You applied US law standards to a foreign nation. Intent, commonality of gun ownership.
This is a foreign nation with their own very strict gun and drug laws. This is very common in 3rd world tourism based countries, particularly island countries. It’s to keep their country controlled and safe, which is essential for the tourism industry. And many of these countries have devastating drug cartel histories, though I don’t know this particular countries history with them.
But yeah, this is all about your gun rights to be careless with your firearms and ammunition, and your rights to travel to other countries and disrespect their laws.
I’m not going to spell out how this is all related to “accountability” because it’s abundantly obvious.
And your victimized take on my pulling your political affiliation is rich, given your words I was replying to:
But I guess not wanting to be accountable for your own words tracks.
I have never said anything about gun rights in relation to this case at all. I was suggesting that the other posters extremist views stem not from applying reason but instead from their prejudiced political views against guns. Just like your posts can’t get around your prejudice about my political views.
Regarding the actually substantive part of your reply: I am not simply applying US law standards in my argument. Intent is a globally recognized legal standard that actually stems from British common law and applies in T+C law as well.
I agree with most of the rest of what you said here about why their laws exist, but the application of it to these tourists in a tourism focused economy is wrong. This is at the end of the day a customs issue. Imprisoning a vacationing grandmother for 2 loose rounds would be insanity.
In your previous post you offered nothing substantive at all. You literally searched my post history to see if I was a member of any groups against which you’re prejudiced so you could feel better about dismissing my arguments without actually addressing them. That’s pathetic.
And again as far as accountability goes, I never suggested they shouldn’t be held accountable. Only that the years long prison sentences are absurd given the facts.