“Stray Bullet” makes it sound like the bullet got off leash. This was a reckless and irresponsible use of firearms and we should start calling it that.
Sounds like you’re conflating gangbangers who post tiktok videos of themselves blasting the air with the 1/3-1/2 of normal humans in American households who own guns.
The real problem here seems to have been the court confusing a gangbanger for a human who can integrate into society.
As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it’s exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and “beyond a reasonable doubt” work: on the principle that it’s better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that’s the idea and the trade-off taken.
No, it’s not. Suffering death is the cost of not having the rights to live. Death is the cost of winning those rights. You believe it’s a subscription service because you haven’t won those rights yet and you’re still paying the cost of not having the right to live.
I’m not sure you fully understand the words you’re saying, “right to live” would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else’s lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.
You’re looking for a different kind of government altogether.
There is a surplus of resources, that’s a strawman argument.
Taxes on unhealthy items such as cigarettes and recreational drugs, and sugar exist, these are how you account for those issues of behavioural social damage and the imbalance in cost of social healthcare.
You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive
Yes, we should do this. Let’s start with the billionaires and see if everyone has enough then.
Shhh, in the US they are very strongly against making sure gun owners are properly tested for how to operate guns and psychological state they are in. Rumors say it could lead to less shooting incidents but it obviously can’t be true because. … eh… amendment yes amendment !
“Stray Bullet” makes it sound like the bullet got off leash. This was a reckless and irresponsible use of firearms and we should start calling it that.
Irresponsible use of firearms in an irresponsible gun culture. Toxic combo.
Sounds like you’re conflating gangbangers who post tiktok videos of themselves blasting the air with the 1/3-1/2 of normal humans in American households who own guns.
The real problem here seems to have been the court confusing a gangbanger for a human who can integrate into society.
Yeah, fuck that NRA apologist bullshit
small price to pay for freedom
Then do us a favour and pay up.
Death is the price you pay to buy freedoms, it’s not a fucking subscription service.
As a matter of fact, it is a subscription, and it’s exactly how the right to privacy, right to not self-incriminate, due process in general, and “beyond a reasonable doubt” work: on the principle that it’s better that some evil people will get off and reoffend than it is for innocent people to be incarcerated for failing to prove their innocence. Not how it always works when prosecutors and judges have a different personal philosophy, but that’s the idea and the trade-off taken.
No, it’s not. Suffering death is the cost of not having the rights to live. Death is the cost of winning those rights. You believe it’s a subscription service because you haven’t won those rights yet and you’re still paying the cost of not having the right to live.
I’m not sure you fully understand the words you’re saying, “right to live” would necessarily demand compelling people to act in the furtherance of everyone else’s lives. You could be held criminally liable for eating too much for example, because you’re taking away resources needed to keep others alive, and your unhealthy lifestyle taxing the health system actively hurts those who need it more.
You’re looking for a different kind of government altogether.
There is a surplus of resources, that’s a strawman argument.
Taxes on unhealthy items such as cigarettes and recreational drugs, and sugar exist, these are how you account for those issues of behavioural social damage and the imbalance in cost of social healthcare.
Yes, we should do this. Let’s start with the billionaires and see if everyone has enough then.
Agreed completely
They’re even admitting they won’t take the responsibility to attempt tracking it down!
Shhh, in the US they are very strongly against making sure gun owners are properly tested for how to operate guns and psychological state they are in. Rumors say it could lead to less shooting incidents but it obviously can’t be true because. … eh… amendment yes amendment !