The right to bear arms and the right to self defense are fundamental human rights. All governments that violate those rights, like Nazi Germany, are very dangerous. Much of the still thinking Left has figured that out. "When someone gets around to asking me the question I shall answer frankly,...But I shall insist upon doing so in a forum in which 'democratic socialists', 'radical democrats', and liberals are called upon to answer too. For it is our collective dirty linen that has to be washed. And besides, our right-wing adversaries already know the answer...." "Our whole project of 'human liberation' has rested on a series of gigantic illusions. The catastrophic consequences of our failure during this century - not merely the body count- but the monotonous recurrence of despotism and wanton cruelty - cannot be dismissed as aberrations. Slimmed down to a technologically appropriate scale, they have followed in the wake of victories of radical egalitarian movements throughout history." Eugene D. Genovese, "The Crimes of Communism: What did you know, and when did you know it?" "Dissent" Summer, 1994.
Criminals throughout human history until the "progressive" era have always feared the law - for good reason. The police in the UK did not need to carry submachine guns until they disarmed their law abiding population.
Your government disarmed the law abiding and your police needed guns - even heavy military weapons to protect themselves. Progress?
That's. Not. A. Tool. Of. The. Presidency. Its. A. Usurpation. Of. Proper. Constitutional. Authority. The president does not write statutes, that's not his ****ing job. Not to mention: Its a violation of the 2nd amendment. And when he either loses this round, or a democrat wins next round you're really going to whine about it. The democrats aren't going to reduce the power of the presidency. Neither the democrats or the republicans ever do that.
There wasn't a big ass sign saying "gun free zone" with the little symbol on it? I sort of doubt that, they have to post that **** by law. The police were a full 60 seconds away, which is why he was able to slaughter all those DEFENSELESS victims.
What statute did Trump write? Democrat Presidents write executive orders all the time. The SCOTUS determines whether they are constitutional.
It is actually. The cognitive dissonance you feel is in knowing that you are debarred the use of arms and therefore not free.
What is your point? That prohibiting guns from a park but not the surrounding area (such as a F*ing country) "doesn't work"? Need I say, 'Duh!'
I double dog dare you to paste up that quote from one of my posts. Or just admit you just made that up.
If by wailing butthurt you mean aggrieved that our government has violated our social contract and caused a bloody civil war, then sure we would be.
That you don't have the personnel to secure a PARK well enough to keep it from being a shooting gallery for some whackadoodle, therefore you should not prevent law abiding members of the public from being armed in defense of themselves and others in accordance with the 2nd amendment.
Which hasn't worked for Australia, in fact their black market is booming. Their criminals are famed worldwide for their acumen at making their own firearms. Some real fancy **** they do.
https://www.primaryarms.com/foxtrot...m-ar-pistol-sba3-brace-primary-arms-exclusive So something like this then?
Believe it or not, there are a few who actually believe that it is. Oh, wait a minute! What's this? > > > When you went to school did you do well in English? * Human * Right
That being the case, you do not understand the meaning of "necessary relationship" When you can demonstrate the necessary relationship between the changes in Australian gun laws after the Pt Arthur shooting and the subsequent decline in mass shootings, let us know - until then you offer only post hoc fallacy. I do not expect this to change.
