Wasn't.
It was put on hold while both sides argued for and against it.
The prosecutor won the argument and the hold was removed.
Kepabar
joined 1 year ago
No one has suggested you would just execute a person on sight while they are under the influence.
In these situations there are interviews, evaluations and waiting periods to ensure the person is 'of sound mind' before proceeding.
So with that cleared up, I'll repeat my question.
Why should you get to be the arbiter of if someone else is allowed to die?
I still don't think that answers the question:
Why should anyone other than yourself be the arbiter of if your life should continue?
Nah, it's neither.
It's that while I do enjoy whatever it is, if it were to disappear because I'm ad blocking and won't sub then .. ohh well?
There are a select few groups I actually care about and I donate to them (like PBS).
Anything else will either find a way or die but I don't care which.
It's called qualified immunity.
The idea is that if a police officer accidentally violates someone's rights while trying to do their job and wasn't aware they are not at fault.
It's not a law but the result of a court case. Many of us want a law passed to remove it.
Yeah, but I didn't care about any of that.
Naw, lots of us stopped when Netflix streaming came in full swing.
I just want to say that this comment was a rollercoaster of emotions and I enjoyed the ride.
Yes, it does.
The way the amendment reads is that the people must be armed in order to form militias to ensure the states stay free; it does not tie the requirement of arms to a militia.
This is backed up by many statements by the founding fathers who state one of the core components to keeping America free from a tyrannical government is an armed citizenship willing to act, compared to Europe, where the citizenship is disarmed.
Y'all joke, but we pretty much had this with the La Sirena in Picard.