Two NY policeman assassinated by African American as revenge for Eric Garner

You are mistaken. Go back and read again

 

Grand jury doesn't indict - lack of evident evidence. Do you feel resolved?

 

Clearly you are mistaken. Even if, for whatever reason, the plain language stating that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is over your head, recent court cases such as DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago should have helped.

Does it matter how I feel? OJ got away with double murder, I never thought about rioting, that woman down in Florida got away with murder, I never thought about rioting. It happens. No system is perfect. That said, it would be surprising to see a grand jury not indict someone who murdered 3 people especially given how it happened.

 

Except it's not. We have all sorts of prohibitions on keeping and bearing firearms in this country. We regulate types of weapons, who can own them, where they can be carried, whether they can be concealed, etc. As SF suggested, you should re-evaluate your understanding of the Constitution.

 

And very regularly those laws get struck down because they are on the cusp of being against the constitution. An outright ban of firearms would be completely against the constitution. If you can't see that, I'm not sure I can help you.

 

1. I see you've modified your original paraphrase in a material fashion.

2. Is that the complete text?

 

Bobby only has a hearsay understanding of the Constitution. He has yet to actually read it.

 

I posted the operative clause without the justification clause but given that the justification clause isn't exactly relevant to the conversation I don't see why you'd point that out. Again, there have been recent SC cases that I posted to help your understanding of the 2nd amendment, I suggest you read up on them.

 

Shameful.

 

Did you bump you head are something thats all the more reason for peaceful protest be it black,white or brown.Why should anybody have to die at the hands of officers.

 

another thread derailed by bobby.

par for the course.

 

You do know what a justification clause is right? I mean, I can teach you, but I need to know what you know and what you don't know first.

 

You're even afraid to print the words.

What a fraidy cat.

 

....again, do you know what a justification clause is or not? It's really important to know because it goes towards relevance. Does a justification clause change an operative clause?

 

What justification clause?

Print the words for me.

 

Fair enough, but it won't help if you don't know what an operative clause and a justification clause are....


Justification clause

Operative clause

 

Yes. It matters how everybody feels. The point of empowering a police and judicial force is so that they can enforce a sense of justice throughout society. Since justice is subjective, how we feel about how they're using their powers is a direct measurement of the system's efficacy.

You've identified two instances where you didn't feel justice was served and the system failed, but don't advocate improvement. Why not?

 

Every system is fallible because people are inherently fallible. IMO the system we have is pretty much as good as it can be even though it won't always work. There's no such thing as perfection in practice.

 

And it was infinitesimal when they had guns, too.

Therefore, one can draw the logical conclusion that UK deaths aren't lower because of the presence or absence of guns, but because people in the UK think differently.

Are you really incapable of thinking that through? Eliminating guns in the UK didn't reduce murder at all. Does that matter at all? Honestly, you guys think about guns the same way that the right wingers think about black people and rap music. You have a visceral fear reaction, and you propose policy on the basis of that discomfort.

 

That wasn't the case in LA in 1992, when they had rioting, why does it have to be the case now?

http://news.yahoo.com/what-ferguson-can-learn-from-the-lapd-214547339.html

I agree that we'll never have a perfect system, because people are fallible ... but can we make an incremental improvement?