Search results

That isn't relevant at all to what I proposed. You know how criminals can trespass on your land, then get hurt on your property, and then sue you for the injuries? That is because there are laws establishing liability. Likewise there are laws that state when you sell food you are liable if...

This is the dumbest take. Did you even read what I said? I described a statute which would establish liability, which is an extremely common type of law. There isn't a constitution in the world that would restrict a law like this.

It would be far more effective to make any location, private or public, which bans fire arms on premises have civil liability for protecting any and all persons on the premises as a matter of law.

At this point the supreme court should just write a bench warrant for New York being in contempt of court

Gun control really started to be a thing after Wold War I, when the aristocrats realized that the commoners had very good and legitimate reasons to depose them after that pointless war.

Arrest the fucking judge.

A few years ago, a police officer decided to perform armed robbery in uniform, and the courts didn't beleive slef defense applied because of the uniform: the Indiana legislature passed a law to reverse this decision.

Japanese crime statistics are the result of creative accountign and nothing else.

UPS is a common carrier, they are basically under the same scrutiny as a government agency.

Once they have done their time, and up until they re-offend, they are law abiding citizens.

Its not a matter of discression, it is a matter of procedure. Just like you need to be informed of what you are accused of prior to a trial, you also need to have all of your punishments assigned at the end of the trial during the sentencing. If the legislator wants a crime to have a punishment...

No, but punishment has to come after the results of a trial, and be specifically those issued as part of the sentencing. Not something tacked on after the fact by a legislator, and certainly not before the fact by an executive.

No. Rights should be absolutes. Resisting arrest should be legal because self defense is so fundamental.

I do, self defense is a fundamental human right. If someone is too dangerous to be allowed a weapon, why the fuck are they out in the streets and not in a grave?

That is stupid. The only immediate response available in time sensitive situations is from civilians already on the scene. Any police reaction will always be 15 minutes to an hour too late, swatt included. If you can wait an hour for swatt, you can wait two for a response with proper checks to...

Place far more restrictions on how they are deployed. Unlike SWAT the National Guard have a proper level of restraints on how they get deployed. To send in the National Guard requires things to escalate to the governor of the state involved.

That is how it worked in the United States for two and a half centuries. It made it significantly harder for the government to start a shootout. That is the whole reason they invented swat, they didn't like how many checks they needed to go through when they had to call in the militia, and...

That is what the militia is for.

That is because terrorism only became a category in the late 90s. Not because people weren't' getting killed.

These people act like money laundering does not exist.