Broke away from my rule?
The war of independance was between German mercenaries and english settlers mostly and I think it happened too long ago for me to take it personally
Anyway, the rule of the state will become stronger and stronger in every nation: it has nothing to do with European colonialism.
If the government decides you do not have the right to carry a gun on your property then you do not. An amendment will be made to the constitution will be abolished at a stroke. If you carry a gun you become an outlaw. Thats simply the way it works. The right to carry guns is not some come of inalienable condition of humanity, it is merely the legal state of your country and is entirely changeable. You do not own any property other than that which is given to you by the state. If the state wants to build a highway through your house they will knock it down and give you compensation and whether you like it or not wont make a difference. Even whether you shoot at the people who evict you or not wont make a difference.
-----Added 20/2/2009 at 06 : 09 : 06-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by guccilvr
so are you saying that they aren't infringing upon a person's right to wear a shirt? There's a big difference between pubs saying you can't wear a football jersey and a cop telling you you can't wear it when you're on your step or just walking down the street.
The police are servants of the people and to the state. They do not have any bearing on what rights we have. They are supposed to ensure public safety and civil order. Taking away a right is not giving due civil order. If, the law, or the state in your example sets a boundary and declares that something is a right, then why would anyone not use that right just because a servant of the state instructed something differently? If the state hands down that it is lawful for a person to carry a 'metal' in their yard, properly holstered and secured, then why would someone not take advantage of their right because two cops did not want to uphold this right to an individual?
Just because an individual is an agent of the state does not mean they have full and just jurisdiction to waive the rights of the people.
|
And the police have the right to subdue someone they feel is a threat. They were probably shaken up by the first death - even if they suspect a suicide they arent really sure of something, and the guy has a tool and and acting very aggressive and provoking them... in the specfic case that started this its no wonder they handcuffed the guy and then took him down the station afterwards