BREAKING NEWS: disgruntled employee just killed eleven (11) co-workers in Virginia Beach

rule of law
/ˌro͞ol əv ˈlô/
phrase of rule

1. the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.

Pure democracy is 'the arbitrary exercise of power' by a majority. That power is constrained by the constitution: 'a defined and established set of laws' (we can debate the 'well' some other time, as its entirely subjective).

Thus the constitution is, by definition, as I said: the Rule of Law.

It would be more accurate to say there is less Rule of Law in Seattle than in the rest of WA state, given their lack of subordinating their power to the defined and established set of laws.

 

Snivel, blubber, babble.
Freedom is hard.
With people like you.
We'd still be a British colony.

 

Indeed not.

For the simple fact that firearms such as the AR-15 are not assault rifles, nor should they be regarded as such.

And exactly what ultimate, meaningful difference, would such actually make, that would warrant such a drastic overreach of authority by the united states government?

 

Then if it is not the availability of firearms, which is being admitted to by yourself with the above statement, then ultimately what is the reason and/or reasons for such a supposed difference between the two nations? Perhaps the people of the nation of Australia are simply much less violent than the people of the united states?

 

Such has already been attempted in the united states, specifically with prohibited indiviudals, such as convicted felons. These individuals cannot legally possess a firearm under any circumstances, and any one found in possession of a firearm can be prosecuted for such, and face an extended sentence in prison for such. Yet this is not serving to discourage even a single example of illegal possession of a firearm.

Once again. Exactly how do you propose going about removing a significant and meaningful percentage of the firearms in the united states from the equation? Explain such. Do be sure it goes far beyond a simple mandate that can be easily ignored by the public, as such is already being done in various states.

 

If the united states constitution is not the law of the land in the united states, then exactly what is it?

 

What then explains how the Czech Republic has less mass shootings and gun homicides than us in Aus despite having extremely permissive gun laws - shall issue concealed handgun carry, legal semi-auto rifles, self defense is a justification for owning a firearm, etc.

Why the disconnect between US rates and Czech rates? Are Czechs just good people?

 

Jerry Springer society.
A disease of excess

 

Shut up. Go away.

 

Yes, you finally posted the truth, instead of your usual dumb deceit. For I am in fact, anti-(White racism), so thank you.

 

are people using those for mass shootings?

 

so you think a 18 year old should be able to buy a machine gun easier then a case of beer?

 

nope.

though they are entirely comparable in lethality to the AR. As is the AK.

So why are ppl using the AR instead of the AK or Mini-14? Hint: its not because its deadlier.

 

A felony convictions means loss of right to vote and lose of right to bear arms.

Those two elements, alone, is why our racist nation has spent the past 60yrs trying to placard as many living Black men with felonies as possible. For decades now this is openly admitted by all intelligent, humans, unless you are a White-racist or you have never lived in America.

 

Would you say, then, that folks advocating for felons who have served their time be granted their rights back are less likely to be racist?

 

It certainly has, especially when it was cheaper than the AR-15.

 

If they are aware, ahead of time, before they start advocating ... that our criminal justice system was designed to prey upon Black humans then, yes, you are likely 100% correct here.

 

An eighteen year old with no criminal record can already legally purchase rifles such as the AR-15, or any other commercially available rifle on the private market. And yet, despite that fact, there is no overwhelming number of eighteen year olds going on wide ranging killing sprees simply because they have a firearm that can be utilized for such.

Explain precisely why that is the case. Then explain why such may change if fully-automatic firearms were more easily available.

 

Why are they not plastering this guys' picture all over America? Is this some new, national strategy??

 

Once again, and do try and stay on topic, has such actually been denied on the part of myself? If so then point out precisely where it has been stated. Otherwise terminate this line of aggressive harassment.

 

#3

 

For the simple reason the perpetrator is black, and thus goes against the acceptable political narrative that only white individuals engage in mass shootings.

 

This is actually like comparing apples to, oranges, if you look at the common denominator in all mass shooters; the avg. 18-yr-old has not been alive, long enough, to build up that level of hatred for his critics or "America" in terms of what he feels they or it has divulged into.

 

Its no secret that the first gun control laws in the US were levied directly against blacks during reconstruction with the emergence of the KKK. Neither is it a secret that up through the 60s, gun control was still targetted mainly at blacks.

Now we see the bulk of gun crime effecting blacks, and the bulk of gun laws preventing them more than other groups from defending themselves, and even while black women are the fastest growing demographic of new gun owners, its still those that most loudly call others racist also most loudly calling for more gun control.

Is gun control not still racist, if not in its intent, then at least in effect?

 

You didn't have to. Because you deluded to it, which is sort of the same thing. Same roots, of dishonesty.

You post a lot of false statements on this, website, and I just quoted one.


If the truth and facts are "aggressive harassment" then your hallucinations you post here do not need to quote my remarks.

Therefore I'm going to politely ask you now, to please refrain from addressing my scholarship I post in this website. Ever.


Pretend that you do not see my posts. Please?