UK politician murdered in broad daylight

[Tyrathca]

Checks and Balances is a mechanism to help prevent a totalitarian state. All power doesn't rest in any specific branch of the government. But in the case that a totalitarian state attempts to nevertheless form, the very existence of an armed society resists it's full blossom.

But how armed is armed enough to resist that? Who decides that? So far not the courts on this issue (they've ruled on gun regulations yes but not how armed is needed for .rebellion)

You keep putting forward your reasoning for why to not regulate guns, what I'm after though is your reasoning for why you want to regulate other weapons. So far you've been contradictory and arbitrary. Clearly you want to regulate armed soceity but on the other hand you keep giving arguments against regulation of armed soceity.

Which is it? Does the government have the right to regulate which weapons can be lawfully kept in order to possibly resist it? Or can the government not do that in which case all weapons of war can be theoretically justified in use?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

But how armed is armed enough to resist that? Who decides that? So far not the courts on this issue (they've ruled on gun regulations yes but not how armed is needed for .rebellion)

You keep putting forward your reasoning for why to not regulate guns, what I'm after though is your reasoning for why you want to regulate other weapons. So far you've been contradictory and arbitrary. Clearly you want to regulate armed soceity but on the other hand you keep giving arguments against regulation of armed soceity.

Which is it? Does the government have the right to regulate which weapons can be lawfully kept in order to possibly resist it? Or can the government not do that in which case all weapons of war can be theoretically justified in use?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

The government gets no say in the right to bear arms, it rests with the states. Federal regulations have to do with trade, nothing to do with rights.

That is sort of the point of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Tyrathca]

The government gets no say in the right to bear arms, it rests with the states. Federal regulations have to do with trade, nothing to do with rights.

That is sort of the point of the 2nd Amendment.

That doesn't answer the question, you're just specifying which government has jurisdiction. Are you pro-regulation (by the state) of the right to bear arms or not? If yes then why do you support banning weapons other than guns, if no then how do you justify banning weapons other than than guns? What legal basis (if any) do you have for that decision?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

That doesn't answer the question, you're just specifying which government has jurisdiction. Are you pro-regulation (by the state) of the right to bear arms or not? If yes then why do you support banning weapons other than guns, if no then how do you justify banning weapons other than than guns? What legal basis (if any) do you have for that decision?

If a person wants to build a tank, he can build a tank. It doesn't mean the military has to dish them out to the highest bidder.

And
States have to obey the Constitution- it applies anywhere on American soil. States simply regulate on common sense terms, such as not permitting parolees to own guns.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You know who is less likely than an unarmed person to be murdered in broad daylight? An armed one.

You know how rare this type of case would happen to be in the UK following your (il)logic? Nowhere near as. You know nothing about this country, in fact you don't display a working knowledge of your own or anything else really...

And
You know how confident a person is with a gun, who knows beyond doubt everyone around them is unarmed? Very.

Yet here in the UK we don't have anything resembling the tragic gun massacres that are reported in the US, even though access to firearms in your neck of the woods is a lot easier than over here. Go figure, or in your case do the math. Use an abacus to help if needs be.

That's why it was in broad daylight in front of everybody. Idiot.
Also, in case you hadn't put two and two together, she was a lawmaker. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you all think it's fun and games to dictate people's liberties- it is not. I see all those smug faces over there; it's as if your minds are not even on this plane of existence.

Yes, because people in most part commit crimes with the full intention of being caught, not to get away with them.

lain:

 

[Tyrathca]

If a person wants to build a tank, he can build a tank. It doesn't mean the military has to dish them out to the highest bidder.

Are you really saying that if a person (or company/organisation /etc?) had the money they could legally purchase or produce for themselves weapons of war such as tanks, missiles, grenades, artillery, mortars or even nukes?

The US government not selling them is hardly an impediment (except perhaps for the nukes) given the large private arms industry (they just probably couldn't buy US government designed equipment). Banning imports wouldn't necessarily stop it (except probably the nukes) and a ban on manufacture and sale within the US would be a defacto ban and thus violate the principles of what you are saying.

That would be a very dangerous world you want to create.

States have to obey the Constitution- it applies anywhere on American soil. States simply regulate on common sense terms, such as not permitting parolees to own guns.

Translation = it's common sense when I agree with it, it's trampling my rights when I don't.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk