3 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

 

Got that?  We own guns so we can shoot dishonest politicians.  Read the Federalist Papers. 

 

3 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Your question is invalid.  Point out where in this thread I said:

 

"you carry a gun to shoot politicians"

 

4 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Treaties give up sovereignty.  Full stop.

Treaties regulate stuff like international air travel, the maritime industry, diplomacy, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, North Atlantic Treaty Organization etc, ect, ect, ect.

They are completely indispensable in modern society. Full stop.

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

Treaties regulate stuff like international air travel, the maritime industry, diplomacy, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, North Atlantic Treaty Organization etc, ect, ect, ect.

They are completely indispensable in modern society. Full stop.

A treaty signed by a duly elected President bypasses Congress.  Full Stop.  That you don't mention it, doesn't mean it isn't the way I described.

4 hours ago, riclag said:

I'm originally from Worcester,Ma.USA. Most people from other countries don't understand the need for the second amendment, the right to bare arms. You bring up a interesting point,one would think the police are there to protect you but

 -

When Seconds Count, Police Under No Legal Obligation To Act ...

 

https://amgreatness.com/2018/02/27/seconds-count-police-no-legal-obligation-act/

1.  

Feb 27, 2018 - U.S. courts have ruled repeatedly that police officers cannot be held liable for ... and ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect, even when a .... While many armed citizens successfully confronted an armed ...

That nonsense again. Do you understand the difference between constitutional and legal obligation?

Inflammatory posts, troll posts and the replies have been removed.  

 

A post in violation of fair use violation was removed as well as the replies. 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

That nonsense again. Do you understand the difference between constitutional and legal obligation?

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the police have no duty to put their lives in danger to protect you.

58 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the police have no duty to put their lives in danger to protect you.

Just read the link provided and judge for yourself.

The claim made earlier is nonsense.

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Just read the link provided and judge for yourself.

The claim made earlier is nonsense.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSEJUNE 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

Don't believe the NYT, try the Supreme Court itself: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/545/748.html

 

So .... you were saying the claim is what?  Nonsense?  Really?  

If Trump disrespects the UN so much why doesn't he kick them out of New York or what that just empty out half of Trump towers.

4 minutes ago, ronrat said:

If Trump disrespects the UN so much why doesn't he kick them out of New York or what that just empty out half of Trump towers.

$$$$$

https://www.undispatch.com/report-un-yuge-money-maker-new-york-city/

All of a sudden, the roar of the meek, the scream of the shrill .. have all come to a sudden silence .. and now all I hear are crickets. 

40 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSEJUNE 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

Don't believe the NYT, try the Supreme Court itself: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/545/748.html

 

So .... you were saying the claim is what?  Nonsense?  Really?  

Yes, nonsense. See my earlier post, constitutional obligation and legal obligation are not the same.

 

And don't forget this UN treaty does not affect domestic weapon sales at all.

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Out of curiosity which of the Federalist Papers authorises an individual to assassinate someone who meets the criteria above e.g. trump 

You're showing us all, that your understanding of the law and constitutional law lacks even a basic understanding.  

 

The Federalist Papers are not law.  The Federalist Papers are not Constitutional.  

An alternative? Surely you jest. Trump has no plans that don't change as soon as Fox News tells him such. He's an idiot and majority of people in the world including Americans clearly know this. Sad.

 
Geez, and I was just about to trade in my old car for a tank.  It will give a whole new meaning to "road rage."  [emoji846]
 
Maybe I missed it in the OP, but did Trump have an alternative plan for dealing with the world arms trade?  I am not sure how well this can be regulated, but this issue always reminds me of children wielding AK-47s.  Also, I am reminded of that 2005 movie Lord of War with Nicholas Cage.  That movie gave me a more graphic understanding of this problem.   

Seems you missed the point of the treaty, to restrict exports of small arms to rogue nations or guerilla groups in various countries. Any restriction will help the proliferation of war or armed actions in the world, my friend.

 
Considering the worldwide carnage going on during the treaty, I hardly see how this will change anything. 

Just now, jerojero said:

I hardly see how this will change anything.

except for giving up sovereignty.

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

Do you understand the difference between constitutional and legal obligation?

Why don't you explain it?  I presented you a Supreme Court Decision from 2005.  You evidently do not see the SC as the last stop in the judicial process. 

So explain it.  

1 hour ago, jerojero said:

An alternative? Surely you jest. Trump has no plans that don't change as soon as Fox News tells him such. He's an idiot and majority of people in the world including Americans clearly know this. Sad.

You got a better choice ! Incidentally,  Americans haven't had a  more peaceful  POTUS  since the cold war! If thats what idiots are inclined to do,he deserves  8 more years(IMOP, add 2 more years  as a apology from the government  from what he calls a  attempted coup)

https://spectator.us/donald-trump-peace-war-machine/

1 minute ago, riclag said:

You got a better choice ! Incidentally,  Americans haven't had a  more peaceful  POTUS  since the cold war! If thats what idiots are inclined to do,he deserves  8 more years( add 2 more years  as a apology from the government  from what he calls a  attempted coup)

https://spectator.us/donald-trump-peace-war-machine/

Quite true.  Trump, for example, has not killed any American Children on foreign soil as Obama did.  I can also state that Trump has not killed any American children on US soil.  I wish I could say the same for Obama but Obama killed an American Boy while he was President of the United States.  One has to wonder how he sleeps at night.

18 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

As a Brit, you are ingrained with a different mentality from childbirth on what the role of the government is supposed to play in your life, and how you view it.

 

A large percentage of the American electorate believes that no matter what, a person should always have a means available to fight back against said government, and to defend its sovereignty. 

 

It is a civil right, much like voting or freedom of press, and enshrined in great granddaddy laws of the nation. 

 

And as a brit, you should know that the entire basis of the Second Amendment is base largely on the actions of the British Crown during colonial times, so I guess in a way we can thank you for that, as without your oppression and tyrannical rule we wouldn't be what we are today. 

The reason for the amendment was to keep slaves in check-a bit out of context now

5 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

You're showing us all, that your understanding of the law and constitutional law lacks even a basic understanding.  

 

The Federalist Papers are not law.  The Federalist Papers are not Constitutional.  

So why did you mention Federalist Papers as a supporting argument for US citizens to commit assassination/s of US politicians.

4 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Quite true.  Trump, for example, has not killed any American Children on foreign soil as Obama did.  I can also state that Trump has not killed any American children on US soil.  I wish I could say the same for Obama but Obama killed an American Boy while he was President of the United States.  One has to wonder how he sleeps at night.

More spin. The boy killed in a drone strike was allegedly a member of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Under Obama info on people killed in US drones strikes was available.. Under trump drone strikes were increased, but information on numbers killed and so on, both combatants and civilians, is suppressed, unavailable.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-has-expanded-obamas-drone-war-to-shadow-war-zones-2018-11?r=US&IR=T

 

 

So why did you mention Federalist Papers as a supporting argument for US citizens to commit assassination/s of US politicians.

Don't misquote me. Wrong.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

More spin. The boy killed in a drone strike was allegedly a member of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Under Obama info on people killed in US drones strikes was available.. Under trump drone strikes were increased, but information on numbers killed and so on, both combatants and civilians, is suppressed, unavailable.
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207
 
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-has-expanded-obamas-drone-war-to-shadow-war-zones-2018-11?r=US&IR=T
 
 

Prove your assertion.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

4 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Don't misquote me. Wrong.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Misquoted? - your post below...

 

The reason why the right to bear "arms" is a protected right, protected by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Federal Constitution, and protected by many State Constitutions, is there, is so we as The People can shoot politicians and other tyrants who might try to take over country and government.

 

Got that?  We own guns so we can shoot dishonest politicians.  Read the Federalist Papers.

Misquoted? - your post below...
 

The reason why the right to bear "arms" is a protected right, protected by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Federal Constitution, and protected by many State Constitutions, is there, is so we as The People can shoot politicians and other tyrants who might try to take over country and government.

 

Got that?  We own guns so we can shoot dishonest politicians.  Read the Federalist Papers.

Uh huh. Yawn. Did I say we derive a right from them. I said to read them. You have failed to make your point.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Just now, 4675636b596f75 said:

Uh huh. Yawn. Did I say we derive a right from them. I said to read them. You have failed to make your point.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

More spin

More spin

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html

Beyond Awlaki’s case, concerns inside and outside the government about blowback from drone strikes have steadily grown, fed by the backlash against the unintended deaths of civilians. Among those victims was Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, also a U.S. citizen, killed two weeks after his father in what American officials call a mistake; they say they were targeting an Al Qaeda operative.

I bring facts to counter your propaganda.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

So the cost of Donald pandering to his base means it’s easyer for the drug cartels to arm themselves?

5 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html

Beyond Awlaki’s case, concerns inside and outside the government about blowback from drone strikes have steadily grown, fed by the backlash against the unintended deaths of civilians. Among those victims was Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, also a U.S. citizen, killed two weeks after his father in what American officials call a mistake; they say they were targeting an Al Qaeda operative.

I bring facts to counter your propaganda.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Thanks, but well aware of the circumstance. You have not addressed the increase of drone strikes under trump, nor his suppression of reporting of drone strikes - got to say you would make a reasonable spin / deflection job with trump Administration.