Gun Control is Completely Useless.


spilledthebeer
#13951
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Toronto man charged with 1st-degree murder after estranged wife dies in machete attack

Assailant, victim dead after knife attack in Kingston, Ont.


I wonder if either tried applying for a PAL


Machete is cheaper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And no wait time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And its good aerobic exercise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Guns are for lazy people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#13952
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

angry old white guy likes a little death threat

what a shock


When you promise that when you get power you will use force to circumvent the supreme law of the land (the constitution) and send armed men to strip you of your rights, a little violence might just be called for.........


It would be Lexington and Concorde all over again.


Read a little history.


The first battle of the American Revolution was fought over British troops heading into the countryside to seize arms, in violation of the English Bill of Rights of 1689.



Oh, and there was no death threat. If there were, the gentleman would be in jail.
 
Hoid
#13953
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

When you promise that when you get power you will use force to circumvent the supreme law of the land (the constitution) and send armed men to strip you of your rights, a little violence might just be called for.........


It would be Lexington and Concorde all over again.


Read a little history.


The first battle of the American Revolution was fought over British troops heading into the countryside to seize arms, in violation of the English Bill of Rights of 1689.



Oh, and there was no death threat. If there were, the gentleman would be in jail.

There is never a good reason to threaten anyone either on social media or in person.

If the laws of the land were being followed there would be no need to confiscate guns.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#13954
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

There is never a good reason to threaten anyone either on social media or in person.

If the laws of the land were being followed there would be no need to confiscate guns.


There was no threat of violence. You're talking about the USA, where they actually enjoy freedom of speech, because of their great Bill of Rights, and under the definition of the Supreme Court, the tweet was NOT a threat.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States


And the actions of criminal individuals have no bearing on the legal rights of the people. In fact, that idea is absolutely moronic. Because somebody shouts real threats, should people be banned from speaking freely?


In your world, there would be no liberty. None.
 
Hoid
#13955
There was a threat

How is the continuing massacre of innocent people liberty?
 
spilledthebeer
#13956
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

There is never a good reason to threaten anyone either on social media or in person.

If the laws of the land were being followed there would be no need to confiscate guns.






HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HemerHOID being even more OBTUSE THAN USUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If the law of the land were being obeyed...........................


WE WOULD NOT NEED an investigation.....................................


INTO LAVALIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
 
spilledthebeer
#13957
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HemerHOID being even more OBTUSE THAN USUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If the law of the land were being obeyed...........................


WE WOULD NOT NEED an investigation.....................................


INTO LAVALIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!




LIE-berals have turned the entire country into LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Consider the CRAP teachers tell us about violence in our schools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!








Here is an article presenting some highly suspect statistics!! With some comments of my own in brackets):

New study shows spike in violent incidents in Ontario's elementary schools

From Cdn Press/ Msn,ca

Published Sept 11, 2019

TORONTO — A study from the University of Ottawa suggests there has been a sharp increase in the level of violence teachers face while working in Ontario's elementary schools.

A team of researchers surveyed more than 1,600 educators last year to gauge the number of times they encountered violence from students, parents or administrators during the 2017-18 school year.

They then compared those results to a survey undertaken by three major unions in 2005, which found that only seven per cent of teachers at the time reported experiencing bullying over the course of their careers.

The researchers found that number had surged nearly seven-fold in the intervening years, with 54 per cent of respondents saying they had experienced physical violence such as punching, kicking or biting — primarily at the hands of students.

(Uh huh - and how much of this surge in violence is related to civil service union HOG manipulation of numbers!! In recent years there has been much debate about how LITTLE teachers are really doing to combat bullying at school!! And from personal evidence I know very well that teachers think nothing of HIDING events that occurred in their schools to improve “public relations”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

(But now we have a game change!! Teacher HOGS are engaged in a BITTER WAR with Ford govt for control of both schools and the lives of our kids!!!!!!!!!!! Teachers want all the power and all the gravy - and NO RESPONSIBILITY for kid outcomes!! Teachers seem to think the school system was created FOR THEIR PERSONAL PROFIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

(Teachers have cried bitterly over the EQUAO standardized testing - that too often reveals HOW LITTLE our kids are learning in core subjects like math!!!!!!!!!!!!)

The survey found 72 per cent of participants reported explicit verbal insults or obscene gestures from a student, with 41 per cent saying they'd had similar encounters with a parent.

(WE should ask if these numbers are not exaggerations?? After all, teachers expect to PROFIT personally if they can play on public sympathy!! Are teachers issuing more Fake News Now- that directly contradicts the heavily edited news they issued in previous years?? Or are they FINALLY telling the TRUTH about school conditions???????????????????????)

The report says such incidents included anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim slurs delivered in class, taunts of "build the wall," and calls for teachers to "go back to your country."

(Oh great - as a result of MESSED UP LIE-beral immigration policy we now have racist crap in class!! It has been over 3 years since teachers in New Brunswick began complaining of being badly treated by recently arrived and mostly Syrian Muslims!! With female teachers most likely to complain of abuse from young male Muslims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

(In that 3 year period there were also reports out of New Brunswick of Jewish students being bullied by newly arrived Muslims!! Union HOG leaders met with Our idiot Boy Justin and apparently found ways to HUSH UP the teacher complaints for the good of the LIE-beral image!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Criminology professor and study co-author Chris Bruckert says the spike reflects many changes in both social conditions and educational programs over the past 12 years.

"When we talk about this as a crisis, that's not hyperbole," Bruckert said in a telephone interview. "There is a serious problem in our elementary schools, and it needs attention."

(It reflects a wider debate about the wisdom of LIE-beral policy and values!! Some Cdns- who get govt pay cheques - are DEVOTED to LIE-beral values- for personal profit!! But the rest of us bitterly OPPOSE LIE-beral gravy grabbing that is loading us up with debt and crippling our future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Bruckert said the issue of violence in the classroom has received scant academic study, citing just 37 peer-reviewed papers completed internationally between 1988 and 2016 and only one focusing on Canadian data. That article, published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence in 2011, had already begun documenting a dramatic surge in teacher-reported violence.

Researchers found 80 per cent of those surveyed reported experiencing some form of physical violence or personal insults at some point in their careers.

(Oh GOSH!! And just HOW do teachers deal with ANY class disruption - now that corporal punishment is off the table?? And since so many kids ride buses- the old standby of keeping the kid after class is GONE since the kid cannot miss the bus without having major transportation issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

(As kids get older - the problem grows - along with the kids strength!! Teachers used to resorted to suspension from school but that merely encouraged kids to drop out!! And there was a HUGE politically correct backlash as the number of visible minority kds being suspended from school was so large!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

(Teachers have rendered themselves IMPOTENT to maintain discipline - for reasons of political correctness and in exchange for gravy from LIE-berals - who care more about re-election than our kids future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Bruckert said the Ottawa research team's focus on a single school year shines a light on how prevalent the issue has become. She said the root causes are multifaceted, encompassing shifts in everything from poverty levels to in-class expectations.

(The more teacher HOGS are paid- the HIGHER are the public expectations for their efforts in class!! It is an absurd truth that the more gravy teachers grab - the more kids are pushed into poverty as their parents wages are TAXED AWAY!!!!!
Teachers and LIE-berals are creating their own troubles with shameless gravy grabbing and obscenely costly vote buying - that also drives the social unrest that teachers are whining about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Changes in Ontario's educational policies, such as a shift away from zero-tolerance disciplinary approaches and one-size-fits-all education plans, are largely positive steps that nonetheless demand more of teachers, Bruckert said.

(Complaints about “one size fits all” education are merely an attempt by LIE-berals and HOGS to absolve themselves of blame for education failures!!! We all know that 2 + 2 = 4 - unless you are a LIE-beral trying to HIDE the dismal results of LIE-beral immigration policy and multicult propaganda!! After all - our entire economy is One size fits all - so you either fit or suffer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

She said educators, in turn, are increasingly dealing with students exposed to social conditions that have changed considerably since 2005. Examples she cited included income disparity forcing parents to work multiple jobs, more limited social interactions driven in part by growing reliance on technology, increasing polarization in society at large and the ravages of the national opioid crisis.

(In other words- Ontari-owe HOGS are dealing with the results of DECADES of LIE-beral rule- that people like Doug Ford are fighting to rectify -with teacher opposition at every turn!! A lawyer representing high school teachers even told us they might not have taken the sex ed fight to court if Ford had not ORDERED teachers to use his revised curriculum - this is classic HOG policy - to demand TOTAL CONTROL -even over our ELECTED GOVT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Cuts to services both inside and outside of schools exacerbate the issue, she said, adding the various factors contributing to the problem do not rest on the shoulders of any one government or policy.

(Ontari-owe is the most INDEBTED sub national political entity on the planet - and Toronto citizens got FAR TO ACCUSTOMED to getting TEN TIMES MORE funding from Queens Park LIE-berals -than any other citizens - such madly UNFAIR disparity could NOT CONTINUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Bruckert said rates of violence disproportionately impact teachers from a racialized background or those with disabilities, noting they reported higher rates of violence than other survey participants.

(Yes- we have heard about Muslim terrorists and their radical agenda for Sharia Law that VERY MANY Cdns object to!! And as noted- many Muslim students OBJECT to being taught be a female and object to being in classes with Jews!! So much for LIE-beral sponsored tolerance and inclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

She also said disabled students are disproportionately implicated in the study results, noting that while students with more specialized needs are reported to "act out" more often, they and the teachers who work with them are increasingly left without necessary supports in and out of class.

"To blame them is putting the focus absolutely on the wrong place," she said. "It's not the kids' fault and it's not the teachers' fault. They need more support."

(There is much debate regarding the wisdom of integrating ALL disabled kids into class regardless of their medical condition and without considering their potential behaviour and ability to disrupt a class!! LIE-berals are catering to the same sort of lobbyists that are fighting cuts to the COSTLY and often ineffective Autism treatments that certain snake oil sales practitioners are offering!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

(HYPOCRITE Teachers routinely bitterly OPPOSE the one size fits all education curriculum and then willingly agree to allow any sort of education problem or potential disruption to be jammed into their classes in exchange for GRAVY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
 
JamesBondo
#13958
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

There was a threat
How is the continuing massacre of innocent people liberty?

I can answer that. You're a ****ing idiot.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
-1
#13959
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

There is never a good reason to threaten anyone either on social media or in person.

If the laws of the land were being followed there would be no need to confiscate guns.

NO need? You might want to think further on that one!
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
-1
#13960
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

NO need? You might want to think further on that one!

OK, I’ll bite. Why do you think the government would need to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#13961
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

There was a threat

How is the continuing massacre of innocent people liberty?


No threat.



Considering this is in the USA, argue with the US Supreme Court.



https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/


And the misuse of a right by a criminal does not legitimize the loss of individual rights by the citizenry.
 
Hoid
#13962
Twitter removes rep's tweet threatening Beto O'Rourke with AR
Tweet violated rules against violence

https://www.keyt.com/news/politics/t...-ar/1120534021

and the right for an American to own a gun does not legitimize crime
 
Colpy
Conservative
+2
#13963
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Twitter removes rep's tweet threatening Beto O'Rourke with AR
Tweet violated rules against violence

https://www.keyt.com/news/politics/t...-ar/1120534021

and the right for an American to own a gun does not legitimize crime


Why do you constantly have to prove you're a troll and a moron?


Twitter is hardly a balanced judge of what is a threat and what is not. In fact, they are more than a little unbalanced. (pun intended)


And crime does not delegitimze individual constitutional rights. Obviously, if you have an IQ larger than your hat size.
 
Hoid
-1
#13964
Lives in a world where there is no such thing as a death threat - likes to call other people morons.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#13965
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Why do you constantly have to prove you're a troll and a moron?

Because I live in fear that somebody'll mistake me for an intelligent, erudite man, and then be real disappointed in fairly short order.

OK, so far we have some definitions and categories. "Arms" for the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms under English, American, and Canadian law, include weapons that in ordinary use are borne and deployed by one person, and exclude crew-served weapons and machines of war such as combat aircraft and warships. For now we are not addressing full-auto rifles, hand bombs and grenades, or one-man rocket launchers (we'll get to that later).

So, next question. . . to whom does the right belong? Let's put it in terms of "everybody but. . ."

OK, obviously the non compos mentis are out of luck. They are almost non-human, in terms of legal rights.

But what about convicted felons? Upon serving their time, all of their other Bill of Rights rights are restored. Do we restore their Second Amendment right? If not, will you admit that this is a limitation on the right not provided for in the Second Amendment?

How about people with mental-health problems, acknowledged and diagnosed, but not declared non compos mentis? Do they have the right, or do you agree that it is permissible to keep them from keeping and bearing arms, despite the fact that the Second Amendment has no language excluding them from the right?

How about people under civil protection orders? As the name implies, these are civil matters, and the standard of evidence is far lower than the criminal standard.

So that's three categories. I'll give you a break and not talk about minors. None of these categories are mentioned in the Second Amendment, yet there seems to be broad agreement that creating exceptions for them is a good idea, because they may be dangerous, despite not having been proved dangerous (in the case of felons, not having been proved continuing dangers).

Do you agree or disagree with these non-textual limitations on the Second Amendment?

How say you?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#13966
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post


But what about convicted felons? Upon serving their time, all of their other Bill of Rights rights are restored. Do we restore their Second Amendment right? If not, will you admit that this is a limitation on the right not provided for in the Second Amendment?

How about people with mental-health problems, acknowledged and diagnosed, but not declared non compos mentis? Do they have the right, or do you agree that it is permissible to keep them from keeping and bearing arms, despite the fact that the Second Amendment has no language excluding them from the right?

How about people under civil protection orders? As the name implies, these are civil matters, and the standard of evidence is far lower than the criminal standard.

So that's three categories. I'll give you a break and not talk about minors. None of these categories are mentioned in the Second Amendment, yet there seems to be broad agreement that creating exceptions for them is a good idea, because they may be dangerous, despite not having been proved dangerous (in the case of felons, not having been proved continuing dangers).

Do you agree or disagree with these non-textual limitations on the Second Amendment?

How say you?


Cut it down to the meat.


I think you can get around the felon argument by allowing judges to put a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms as part of the sentence at the time of sentencing. If that is not constitutionally possible, then I guess ex-felons, once their sentence and all post-prison time is served, they get to own guns.


The mentally ill are a more distressing problem. I've had both a cousin and a good friend fall seriously mentally ill, and believe me, neither of were in the mental condition to have firearms. Neither did, thank God. Both were, however, involuntarily sent to mental hospitals........which I imagine constitutes a temporary (at least) judgement of non compos mentis. The thing is they were released long long before their respective deaths, and they were never cured. My cousin actually, was murdered.


So, after that convoluted attempt to duck the question, I would advocate for more comprehensive judgement of incapacity........and say once again, if not possible, you've got to allow then their rights.


I have no idea what a "civil protection order" is, being Canadian. I assume what we call a restraining order.........but is that not a part of the criminal law?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#13967
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Cut it down to the meat.
I think you can get around the felon argument by allowing judges to put a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms as part of the sentence at the time of sentencing. If that is not constitutionally possible, then I guess ex-felons, once their sentence and all post-prison time is served, they get to own guns.
The mentally ill are a more distressing problem. I've had both a cousin and a good friend fall seriously mentally ill, and believe me, neither of were in the mental condition to have firearms. Neither did, thank God. Both were, however, involuntarily sent to mental hospitals........which I imagine constitutes a temporary (at least) judgement of non compos mentis. The thing is they were released long long before their respective deaths, and they were never cured. My cousin actually, was murdered.
So, after that convoluted attempt to duck the question, I would advocate for more comprehensive judgement of incapacity........and say once again, if not possible, you've got to allow then their rights.
I have no idea what a "civil protection order" is, being Canadian. I assume what we call a restraining order.........but is that not a part of the criminal law?

Yep, a restraining order, sometimes called a stay-away order. Same thing. But no, it is not a criminal matter. The victim, usually a woman, files for one against a victimiser, usually a man with whom she was in a domestic relationship, and she need only prove that she has a reasonable fear of him. Shouting, threatening, punching the walls, throwing dishes, destroying possessions, all things not necessarily criminal, can serve as bases. And the standard of proof is only "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt," the criminal standard, nor even "clear and convincing evidence."

Of course, such an order can also accompany criminal matters, such as assault. In many states, persons with such orders standing against them may not own guns.

Either way, I think we've established that supposedly unlimited right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed is, in point of fact, infringed in many ways, just as almost all of our Bill of Rights rights are.

Next up is whether or not the types of arms available to the people can be limited. This is where we start to deal with that middle ground, between war machines and one-man weapons, things like grenades (hand or launched), automatic rifles, and one-man rocket launchers. These things are tightly controlled in the U.S., called Class III weapons. Further, automatic weapons can no longer be manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S., except to governmental entities or specially-licensed holders.

And I'm sure you know that the subject matter of Miller in 1939 was a sawn-off shotgun, and the Supreme Court upheld the power of the state to ban it. Similarly, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, specifically restated that Miller remains good law in the U.S., and governments retain the power to ban "unusual and dangerous" weapons.

Thus we have both classes of people, and classes of weapons, that lie outside the protection of the bare-bones text of the Second Amendment and its equivalent rules in English and Canadian law. And this is completely consistent with limitations on other rights that are unconditionally stated in the laws of our countries. The right of free speech is not absolute (the classic examples of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, incitement to riot, or lewd behavior toward minors). Nor is the right to be free of search and seizure. Even in the Fourth Amendment, the text says "unreasonable search and seizure," (emphasis mine). If a suspected felon runs into his house and slams the door, the cops need no warrant to break down the door and get him, for example. Ditto the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking property. It need only be for a public purpose and fairly compensated.

Even when there is no limiting language in the statement of the right, the long-held American formulation is that the government may abrogate a right if doing so serves a "compelling government interest," and the restriction is "narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Both of those things can be tested in court, but if they pass the test, the infringement of the right stands. That is what Scalia was talking about when he upheld the power of the government to ban "unusual and dangerous" weapons.

And I must say, it seems sensible to me. Such an exercise of government power must clear significant hurdles: the political unpopularity of restricting rights, followed by a careful court analysis of the quality of the interest and the tailoring of the restriction. It is worth noting that the 1990s "assault weapon ban" passed Constitutional muster, but failed the political test, and was therefore not renewed when the law sunsetted.

This, in a nutshell, is the American approach to fundamental Constitutional rights. And it makes at least as much sense as the strained constructions you want to put on criminal sentences and the handling of people with mental problems. Either way, you end up with infringement of the right that "shall not be infringed."

Logically, you must accept that the right CAN be infringed for good cause, or you must declare your support for allowing people with mental problems, convicted felons who have served their time, abusive domestic partners, and even minors in many cases, to keep and bear any kind of one-man weapon they feel like, including grenades, automatic weapons, rocket launchers, and flamethrowers.

I am ready to hear your counterargument, or if you concede my argument, we can move on to what is the "compelling government interest" in gun control, and what is "narrow tailoring of the restriction" to satisfy that interest whilst leaving as much of the right as possible intact.

I would point out that doing that, finding a way to restrict the right for good cause while leaving it as widely in force as possible, is basically the same thing you're trying to do in your post above.
Last edited by Tecumsehsbones; Sep 16th, 2019 at 06:44 PM..
 
JamesBondo
#13968
Quote:

Next up is whether or not the types of arms available to the people can be limited.

It is not always about what can and can not be done. Any restriction needs to be logically or rationally connected to the condition we are trying achieve. If you call for a banning of rifle turrets in jeeps under the premise of safer movie theatres, the legal system needs to say ' hey dumbass,jeeps arent typically a concern inside movie theatres'
 
JamesBondo
#13969
Quote:

So, next question. . . to whom does the right belong? Let's put it in terms of "everybody but. . ."

Actually let's not. It is most definitely 'everybody' and any and all exceptions must be appropriate.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13970
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

It is not always about what can and can not be done. Any restriction needs to be logically or rationally connected to the condition we are trying achieve. If you call for a banning of rifle turrets in jeeps under the premise of safer movie theatres, the legal system needs to say ' hey dumbass,jeeps arent typically a concern inside movie theatres'

Logic isn't your long suit, eh Bondo?
 
JamesBondo
+1
#13971
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Logic isn't your long suit, eh Bondo?

clearly you are an asshole.
 
Serryah
Free Thinker
#13972
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Because I live in fear that somebody'll mistake me for an intelligent, erudite man, and then be real disappointed in fairly short order.

OK, so far we have some definitions and categories. "Arms" for the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms under English, American, and Canadian law, include weapons that in ordinary use are borne and deployed by one person, and exclude crew-served weapons and machines of war such as combat aircraft and warships. For now we are not addressing full-auto rifles, hand bombs and grenades, or one-man rocket launchers (we'll get to that later).

So, next question. . . to whom does the right belong? Let's put it in terms of "everybody but. . ."

OK, obviously the non compos mentis are out of luck. They are almost non-human, in terms of legal rights.

But what about convicted felons? Upon serving their time, all of their other Bill of Rights rights are restored. Do we restore their Second Amendment right? If not, will you admit that this is a limitation on the right not provided for in the Second Amendment?

How about people with mental-health problems, acknowledged and diagnosed, but not declared non compos mentis? Do they have the right, or do you agree that it is permissible to keep them from keeping and bearing arms, despite the fact that the Second Amendment has no language excluding them from the right?

How about people under civil protection orders? As the name implies, these are civil matters, and the standard of evidence is far lower than the criminal standard.

So that's three categories. I'll give you a break and not talk about minors. None of these categories are mentioned in the Second Amendment, yet there seems to be broad agreement that creating exceptions for them is a good idea, because they may be dangerous, despite not having been proved dangerous (in the case of felons, not having been proved continuing dangers).

Do you agree or disagree with these non-textual limitations on the Second Amendment?

How say you?


Just wanted to add that I asked people the same thing about the mentally ill when it comes to the gun debate, and never once received an answer but was either ignored, told off or totally blocked.


To me, that suggests that even gun supporters don't know how to answer the question without breaking their own rules of "guns for everyone allowed".


As it is, fascinating discussion TB.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
-1
#13973
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

clearly you are an asshole.

Clearly, you are still a half-formed child-man.
 
JamesBondo
#13974
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Just wanted to add that I asked people the same thing about the mentally ill when it comes to the gun debate, and never once received an answer but was either ignored, told off or totally blocked.
To me, that suggests that even gun supporters don't know how to answer the question without breaking their own rules of "guns for everyone allowed".
As it is, fascinating discussion TB.

in Canada, we have a test to check if there is a constitutional right that has been infringed.
The Oakes test is outlined
as follows:
1. There must a pressing and substantial
objective for the law or government action.
2. The means chosen to achieve the
objective must be proportional to the
burden on the rights of the claimant.
i. The objective must be rationally connected
to the limit on the Charter right.
ii. The limit must minimally impair the
Charter right.
iii. There should be an overall balance or
proportionality between the benefits
of the limit and its deleterious effects
 
spilledthebeer
#13975
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

There is never a good reason to threaten anyone either on social media or in person.

If the laws of the land were being followed there would be no need to confiscate guns.




Both criminals and LIE-berals consider it to be threatening..................................


if the public wants action taken on illegal behaviour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just LOOK at the LIE-beral reaction to public calls........................................


for a real police investigation into Lavalin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13976
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

in Canada, we have a test to check if there is a constitutional right that has been infringed.
The Oakes test is outlined
as follows:
1. There must a pressing and substantial
objective for the law or government action.

Sounds like our "compelling government interest" standard.

Quote:

2. The means chosen to achieve the objective must be proportional to the burden on the rights of the claimant.

i. The objective must be rationally connected to the limit on the Charter right.

ii. The limit must minimally impair the Charter right.

iii. There should be an overall balance or proportionality between the benefits of the limit and its deleterious effects

Sounds like a more flexible and detailed, but similar standard to our "narrowly tailored to serve the government interest" standard.
 
JamesBondo
#13977
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Sounds like our "compelling government interest" standard.
Sounds like a more flexible and detailed, but similar standard to our "narrowly tailored to serve the government interest" standard.

"Demonstrably justified" means that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that the limits it has imposed are reasonable.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#13978
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

"Demonstrably justified" means that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that the limits it has imposed are reasonable.

Sounds good. I'm simply saying that the standards sound the same.

Hardly surprising that two similar systems from a single origin arrived at quite similar solutions.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
-1
#13979
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

clearly you are an asshole.


I must be as well because your logic escapes me too
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13980
A national handgun ban is potentially an election issue, here.