Weather or not you like a particular discrimination, is your viewpoint.
It's not like choosing a football team to support, you know.
represents the group who's unfairly burdened by the original requirement.
I would say that the group is fairly burdened by the requirement. Burdens arent unfair just because you dont want to be burdened.
Neither are burdens fair just because they're imposed by a religiously-based conservative majority.
The US's privately held arsenal has so far been useless in preventing the creation of a semi-fascist state.
If I'm armed and the government (for whatever reason) decides I need to be removed, they will most likely succeed. I will, however, most likely succeed in causing casualties and/or making a big PR spectacle of being taken down. I might even achieve martyr status if I'm killed, causing a PR debacle for the government.
No, if a cop/soldier shoots and kills someone, it's much better PR for the government if that person is armed.
The best martyrs are unarmed and offer only passive resistance.
Anyway, are you seriously under the impression that no US cop, FBI agent, soldier or National Guardsman has ever killed a US citizen?
The government just needs to call them dangerous criminals or terrorists for them to become legitimate targets. And anyone who offered violentresistance to the government would be very easy to label as a terrorist, I would think.
The murder rate in the US is vastly higher than any other developed nation.
Actually, it isn't. If you exclude the top few cities
That makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying "India is almost as wealthy as the US, if you exclude all the hundreds of millions of poor people in India."
The murder rate is the murder rate, regardless.
If a person has the time, money, skills, and tools to use a CNC mill to finish an AR lower, they probably are not in the violent crime lifestyle.
Translation: I am leisured, rich, and well educated, and therefore shouldn't be subject to the same laws as those real criminals.
Loads of people want to check whether their friends and neighbours cars are legal.
Is this a cultural thing? Around here we definitely wouldn't be doing that to our "friends" and we would only do that to neighbors we actively hate to the point of almost being willing to frame them for crimes.
Can you explain this from a cultural perspective?
I can explain our cultural perspective: we generally dislike the government, so we would have to hate someone pretty badly in order to find it attractive to harm them by helping the government. Furthermore, this also seems offensive culturally because it represents meddling in others' affairs. Certainly not something one would do to a friend.
In general, Britain has an anti-sneak culture, so I doubt many people would literally report their neighbour. It's more likely to be general nosiness.
In any case, the police have been able to do a live check on tax/insurance for ages now, so they don't really need members of the public helping them out.
Why cant the UK or US?
We've had online registration and health care services for years. I haven't had to fill out a medicare form or go into a medicare office... ever. Not once in my adult life.
Living in the UK, I have never had to fill out a "medicare form" either. That's because we have a National Health Service.
Honestly acquired wealth
An idea that would be charming in its naivety coming from a child.
What the hell are you even talking about?
" (which is a key signature for life as we know it)"
Which you're assuming means the same as here!!??
Life as we know it would by definition be the same as here. That doesn't mean there aren't other, unfamiliar forms of life.