Ah yes, that really old law. We have one in the UK like that, it says something like you can shoot a Scotsman in York on sight, but only with a bow and arrow or after midnight or something
But it’s not enforced because it’s an old law and, well, WE’RE NOT FUCKING STUPID 😂
Since it’s still on the books, could that be used as a legal defense? (Just curious, I’m neither in the UK nor wish to kill anyone with a bow and arrow after midnight)
Common law is based on precedent more than written law (code law), so the fact that no scottsman has been killed in over 100 years and used this law as a defence is proof enough that it isn’t valid legislation.
No, you couldn’t use it as a valid legal defense. There are a lot of old laws like this in the UK that, while technically on the books, have been replaced by more recent legislation.
One thing a lot of people are concerned about is the current state of politics, it’s incredibly difficult to get that process going and once we open that can of worms you better believe that billionaire assholes that have already been trying to influence politics will have their favorite atrocious shit put into the constitution.
It’s more like “let’s legislate our issues first.” If we have to change the constitution I’m pretty sure we’re going to end up with an amendment that requires all citizens to buy Koch products, abolish the EPA and make those kinds of departments unconstitutional, or some other absurd nonsense.
2A = second amendment. The second amendment to the United States constitution declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Second amendment of the US constitution. It’s text is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And what that means is up to “interpretation” and some think it means that everyone with no restrictions what so ever should be able to buy guns on a moments notice. Its the main reason why we have this problem state side.
Well, a special parliament meeting has been called already. Our constitution is quite malleable and I think most parties will agree on stricter gun laws. The gun was legally carried by the perpetrator after all, despite his mental instability and online posts suggesting he premeditated the act.
Also, I expect more training at schools: the killer killed his father first before heading to the faculty, and they had been warned. A partial evacuation was conducted but turned out to be ineffective.
Yeah, except the Czech Republic will probably take meaningful steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again
Considering they have a semi-2a already, doubt they will. And I hope they don’t and get further pro-2a…russia is near.
WT actual F is a 2A? Sounds like a school class? Do we shoot it?
It’s “murican” for the right to bear arms. Namely referring to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
Somebody probably has shot it knowing this country.
Ah yes, that really old law. We have one in the UK like that, it says something like you can shoot a Scotsman in York on sight, but only with a bow and arrow or after midnight or something
But it’s not enforced because it’s an old law and, well, WE’RE NOT FUCKING STUPID 😂
Well, brexit.
Just stupid in different ways.
We can all be morons together. separately if you don’t want to risk stray bullets from this side.
Since it’s still on the books, could that be used as a legal defense? (Just curious, I’m neither in the UK nor wish to kill anyone with a bow and arrow after midnight)
Common law is based on precedent more than written law (code law), so the fact that no scottsman has been killed in over 100 years and used this law as a defence is proof enough that it isn’t valid legislation.
No, you couldn’t use it as a valid legal defense. There are a lot of old laws like this in the UK that, while technically on the books, have been replaced by more recent legislation.
No, common law is set in precident and there’s no legal precident for it currently.
Isn’t it always “after midnight”?
You’re advocating to disregard any constitution that’s too old?
At least update the fucker every few years…we won’t even do that anymore.
One thing a lot of people are concerned about is the current state of politics, it’s incredibly difficult to get that process going and once we open that can of worms you better believe that billionaire assholes that have already been trying to influence politics will have their favorite atrocious shit put into the constitution.
It’s more like “let’s legislate our issues first.” If we have to change the constitution I’m pretty sure we’re going to end up with an amendment that requires all citizens to buy Koch products, abolish the EPA and make those kinds of departments unconstitutional, or some other absurd nonsense.
Maybe amend it
Yes.
YES
r u stupid?
feel free to say no but ur case isnt looking good
Then fails to type whole words 😂
didnt deny it lol
2A = second amendment. The second amendment to the United States constitution declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yeeehaw! I’ve got a semi-2A just thinking bout shootin’
Second amendment of the US constitution. It’s text is:
And what that means is up to “interpretation” and some think it means that everyone with no restrictions what so ever should be able to buy guns on a moments notice. Its the main reason why we have this problem state side.
Fuck, just wait until they come up with a bump-stock-2A
Types 2a because they can’t spell ammendment
That’s because the education system would be better run by a crack head.
Well, a special parliament meeting has been called already. Our constitution is quite malleable and I think most parties will agree on stricter gun laws. The gun was legally carried by the perpetrator after all, despite his mental instability and online posts suggesting he premeditated the act.
Also, I expect more training at schools: the killer killed his father first before heading to the faculty, and they had been warned. A partial evacuation was conducted but turned out to be ineffective.
Yep, your constitution is not like the USAs which requires a lot of support from 2/3rds of the states to be ratified.