In the United States, that would be "false imprisonment" or whatever the title would be in any other given state, and that is only while the passenger isn't in motion. Once the passenger is in motion, that becomes kidnapping, which is a forcible felony, in which deadly force is available and on the table. Such an arraignment wouldn't be allowed here. You need to also understand that the material you are talking about(the "people-proof glass") most likely isn't glass, and it is only rated to withstand so many impacts by a human/round of ammunition hitting it before it will fail. So, yeah, no thank you.

Wrong, see link: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... You are, otherwise, not worth responding to.

That is totally and completely false. I've been carrying a firearm on my person since I was 18 years old, even when not working(in case you can't guess, I became a law enforcement officer), and what do you know, I never lost control of myself nor my firearms once(I'm 45 years old now; though, I am also big, in decent shape, and not the type of person anyone wants to be in opposition of). I have actually "been there, done that", and my experience has shown(both personally and professionally) that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are just parroting what you have either "heard", or are pushing an agenda that you want to be acted on.

Here, I will drop a link to a search engine result of links, because I am not going to just spam links to "win" this rather useless internet debate: https://www.google.com/search?.... Hell, even the CDC and FBI disagree with you, which would make your entire point laughably hilarious and idiotic, you know...if weren't talking about people's lives. Law enforcement isn't anyone personal protective service, nor do they have the responsibility to protect anyone, ever. It is past time that everyone gets the message: Law enforcement isn't personal security(Warren v Washington D.C.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia), DeShanney v Winnebago County DSS, and Gonzales vs the Town of Castle Rock, etc, etc, etc) Your safety is your personal responsibility, no one else's.

Feel free to respond, coward, though I won't "hold my breath".

If your want to take the risk of trying to force me (or anyone else in a class or group you don’t like) on such a list and try to walk away from such an encounter alive, I do sincerely wish you all the best luck available in the universe.

Lists are one of the well known beginnings of far worse problems, the “why” being of no consequence. So, yeah, I take serious exception to people suggesting this.

Apologies,I intended that to read(at the beginning) “ ..your statement.. ”

Except statement starts off with bullshit. Approximately 750,000 US citizens died due to the US Civil War, which, at the time, was approximately 2.5% of the US populous. If the increase that to 2.5% of today’s US population, then you would be looking at 7,000,000 dead to equate to the number that died during the US Civil War.

Of, course, you have to do that, as a virus, just like war, affects everyone equally, on “the battlefield”.

I've had a lot of sex with "teens", one while I was in high school(she "rocked" my "world", and by "world", I mean "cock"), and a few more after I graduated high school and went off to college. After graduating college, there were even a few more "teens" I had sex with. It was nice, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Of course, you being an idiot, I don't expect that you understand that 18 and 19 year old individuals are also "teens", nor that in many states, the age of consent isn't 18, it is either 14, 15, and 16 years old(depending on each state's law, though there are more that have the age of consent at 16). I bet you also believe that, because so many people have called others under the age of 18 "children", that you also believe they are children; the real issue is, they aren't. Children start becoming adults around 14, 15, and 16 years old, hence the reason 16 year old individuals are given driver's licenses. Before the creation of the idea of "adolescence", men as young as 14 were allowed into military and militia service(the group of "states"/territories that became the United States used men 14 years old and up to staff military positions, and all other men, 14 to 45, were a part of the area's perspective militias). Now, the "goal posts" have been shifted, so whatever.

Now, before anyone goes calling me a "pedophile", "child molester", etc., understand that: Firstly, fuck you, I don't care. You are some faceless, nobody on "the Internet". Even if you were, I couldn't possibly care less what your opinion of me is, and I never have. Secondly and, really, lastly, I am married to a women six and one half years my senior(in other words, she is six and one half years older than me, for the less intelligent), and we have no children. I say that so others, who don't devolve to "childish" acts, such as "name calling", or other, related acts, know that I'm not some mouth-breathing pederast or pedophile(well, my statements don't actually "prove" anything, but I added them regardless).

What you said would be funny, if you weren't apparently so serious, about calling out someone's alleged "ignorance", when you are exuding it in such great quantities. I believe we have nice instance of irony here. Just because government(US, State, and/or local) has been violating our(US Citizens) US Constitutionally-protected rights for "long periods"(over years, decades, and in some cases, centuries; in fact, Abraham Lincoln was one of the biggest violators in history) doesn't magically make it legal or right. Of course, from your comments, I don't expect you to grasp this.

If a "right" can be restricted, controlled, or taken away, then it isn't a "right"; it's a "privilege". I should also state that "requiring" a "permit" to assemble in a group is also a violation of our(again, US Citizens, and those within the jurisdiction of the United States) First Amendment protections, among other violations you mention as, apparently, "proper use of government authority(and I say authority, because no government has "rights").

I also must point out that, given the heavy restrictions on firearms in the United States, among all of the states, that "the militia"(which is still all "able-bodied males, and even females, from 14 to 45, and older; because it was, for a long time, 14, not 18 years old. Also, "the militia" isn't the National Guard; it never has been, and it never will be) cannot execute its job effectively. Select-fire firearms("machine guns, "full-autos", etc) are effectively banned, or artificially priced too high due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner's "Protection" Act of 1986, and then there is the NFA'34/GCA'68, Title II(National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, Title II(specifically), which also create artificial and wholly unnecessary roadblocks to arms ownership and, at the same time, violations of the protections of the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution.

Those people should have armed themselves, as it is the individual's responsibility to provide for one's own protection/security. It isn't, and has never been the job of law enforcement to protect others, or provide personal security to the citizenry. Hence the name: "law enforcement".

Does that many that everyone carrying a firearm will be able to protect themselves successfully in every encounter? No. If that were true, there would never be an instance of death among law enforcement, except when the death is self-inflicted intended by said law enforcement( i.e. suicide). One needs to prepare as best as possible, and hope for the best. Regardless, I will take my chances and carry a firearm(I carry more than one every day, everywhere I go), than not carry and hope that someone else around me has a firearm and will protect me.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution, like all other amendments under the "Bill of Rights" heading, never conferred any US citizens any rights; the "Bill of Rights" only protects certain preexisting rights. Therefore, changing or "invalidating" the Second Amendment won't take away our(US citizens, and, yes, citizens of our respective states) right to own and carry/possess firearms(or any "arms", for that matter). If changing a US Constitutional amendment could rob us of any of our rights, then it was never a "right"; it was a "privilege".

To be clear, "rights" don't come from government acts or will, and "rights", therefore, cannot be taken away by government. At least, that is the way it works in the United States.

Yes, because the US Supreme Court is never wrong.

The truth is, the US Supreme Court justices that voted to uphold the ACA were wrong. If you want me to explain how they were wrong(and provide "citations"), I suggest you go and discover the answers for yourself; I don't provide free education.

It is important to point out that the US Constitution(more to the point, the "Bill of Rights") didn't create or give any of us(US Citizens, or other non-citizens on US Soil) any rights; it simply protects certain rights, such as those the "framers" of the US Constitution and "Bill of Rights" knew might be abused at a later date. Rights exist inherently, and as such, amending the US Constitution won't invalidate any rights, just as law can't. If a simply amendment, or law can invalidate a right, then it is no right; it's a "privilege".

The FAA is an executive agency*(you do understand what the fucking root word of "executive" is, right? I don't see the word "legislate" anywhere, which is what both, and each, side of the US Congress does). I do hope you understand how the Executive Branch of the US Government works. I guess you also believe that all law enforcement bodies within the United States(at the federal, state, and/or local level) exist to protect "us"(the citizens, and all other within the boarders of the United States, and the other, respective areas of competent jurisdiction. Here is a hint(well, I will give you two hints) to show your fallacy: 1. "Protect" isn't anywhere in the name, [and] 2. Warrant v DC(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)(as well as Deshaney v Winnebago County(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County), and Gozales v Castle Rock(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales))

*The FAA is actually an agency that exists under the US DoT(United States Department of Transportation)

Rights are given by government(any government), they are inherent to each individual. As such, no person, nor group of people, can ask permission to violate anyone's rights, or any group of people's rights. As an analogy(though not totally accurate), it would be like Person A asking Person C to use/abuse the property of Person B; the "property" being "rights"(which should be obvious). I mean, what kind of idiocy is be fostered and supported in colleges and universities(well, above what has existed over the past few decades, at least)?

This whole problem becomes even more offensive when we are talking about government funded, operated, and "owned" schools, since such an institution is just another "arm" of government(usually a state government). Speech is one of the "pesky" rights explicitly protected by the US Constitution(please remember, the US Constitution didn't create or provide rights to anyone; it simply protects certain, rather important rights which "the founders" knew, based on history(up to that point) would likely be abused by government(s). Those rights are not the only rights we have, nor would any further amendments to the US Constitution rid any of us of those explicit rights), as well as most, if not all US state constitutions. Any attempt by such state-run institutions to violate anyone's rights, including its students(which, mind you, are all adults, save, possibly, for a very few exceptions) would likely be an "under color of law" violation, depending on the circumstances(worst case scenario, most likely), or something that cannot be enforced and simply ignored(best case scenario).

In the end, people need to stop giving others, including these education centers, more power, while revoking much of the actually little power such organizations have now. These institutions exist to educate, not control. So, to them I say, "Stop it, goddamn it!"

Thus endth thy lesson.

The executive arm, in any state government or the US government, has the sole power of enforcement(hence the name). Legislatures(again, in the US) have the sole power to craft, pass, and repeal laws(courts have some power that is law repealing, but judges must have a case brought before the respective courts to initiate the use of such power; judges don't get to simply muse whatever law, whenever is convenient for them, and start repeal whatever law they wish) among other duties, and courts try alleged criminal acts discovered during the enforcement of the various, existing laws, and have the authority to decide if a law is constitutional/legal, decide the meaning of a law that might be challenged during the court of a trial(criminal or civil, depending on the issue in dispute), among other duties.