At least 10 killed after shooting during 'Dark Knight' screening in Colorado

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
So this degenerates into the usual as those without the mental equipment jump in.

The right to bear arms has been clarified time and again by the US SC- Your viewpoint is invalid- Bringing in the Magna Carta is invalid-

You state that the writers of the Constitution did not consider the advances of technology- Yet offer no proof.

Consider one word the writers used when crafting a masterful document of Freedom.
One that others have copied in a variety of ways.

During these trying times they used the word Creator -

U.S. Constitution - Table of Contents - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Ah. You beat me to it.

Funny how when someone shows one of these wingnuts that they are wrong and in return, are called "trolls".
Predictable. So is the inevitable 'ignore'.

As if not reading the posts that point out, mock or otherwise refute, their nonsense don't exist, after the iggy button gets pushed, lol.

You state that the writers of the Constitution did not consider the advances of technology- Yet offer no proof.
I've had discussions with someone who has actually studied the Constitution, Constitutional law, and case law. At great lengths.

I Think Not.

The Framers most definitely were thinking of the hight of technology, when they framed the living Constitution.
 

skookumchuck

Council Member
Jan 19, 2012
2,467
0
36
Van Isle
It must be frustrating to realize that the only people that can be swayed to a progressive cum Marxist viewpoint are children and academics, those who can't do teach.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Virtually every time there is an incident like this you hear people talking of taking steps to ensure this sort of thing never happens again. Realistically that is never going to happen. The people who perpetrate these things are often just as unreliable as an avalance. People who may on the surface appear to be capable of such nefarious acts probably number in the tens of thousands, not to mention tens of thousands more although they appear very unlikely, can be just as nefarious, given the right conditions or events that set them off.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
I did not say gun ownership lowered the crime rate, I said guns were used for defense more that a million times a year. There is no evidence than gun carry raises crime rates, thus, in a free country, carry should be allowed.

Purely anecdotal. There is no concrete evidence that guns have any real impact on preventing crime in the US. All of the sources you presented in a previous thread were 20 years out of date and presented by pro-gun types. As I said, criminals being criminals if they do fear guns they will simply seek a softer target or carry guns themselves.

One does not require a license to exercise a right. Any such law would meet with massive resistance and noncompliance, as licensing and registration laws have in Canada, where the right is not taken nearly as seriously as it is in the states. Better start building prisons, and call out the National Guard.

Wrong. Do you have a driver's license? A license and fundamental training can be required for any activity where a device that might endanger the public is to be used.

What's the difference??? He only fired at most 200 rounds, probably much less. Did 5800 rounds of unfired ammo do any damage? I own many different calibers, and I probably have 6,000 rounds, much of it .22 rimfire....so what??.

With all due respect. Anyone who requires 6000 rounds of ammo is either a damned poor shot, completely gun obsessed, or planing something unpleasant.

Wrong. The Second Amendment clearly outlines the purpose of the right as militia service, and before you go there, the militia is the entire body of the people. Therefore the right extends specifically to millitary-type weapons. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with duck hunting. See the SCOTUS case of Miller, 1939 .....in which the Court ruled

in other words, the ONLY weapons protected are military type weapons.

No you are wrong. If military types weapons are protected under the Second Amendment why then are grenades, RPGs, machine guns, bombs, etc. restricted to the military? Any weapon can be restricted simply by requiring that it be used properly.

Oh, and I especially love this!!

Well DUH! lol

Highest firearms ownership is in Wyoming Scores a miniscule FOUR POINTS out of a possible 100 on the Brady rating scale for states. Murder rate: 1.4 per 100,000 (2010) (45th out of 50 states, and a lower murder rate than Canada)

How about Vermont, about the freest state in the USA when it comes to gun laws?? (after Wyoming) Vermont scores SIX POINTS out of a possible 100 on the Brady scale for rating state laws. Murder rate in 2010??? 1.1 per 100,000. That is about 40% LESS than Canada's murder rate. It is 49th out of 50 on the state murder scale.

I appreciate the ":Duh," it perfectly sums up your thinking. Sorry, Colpy, but when it comes to guns you are simply not rational. Quoting select stats from a few states does not in any way opbscure the fact that the death rate from firearms in the US is vastly higher than in any other similar nation on the planet. I'm sure that if you used Disneyland as part of your statistics you could prove that there are one or two safe places in the US. No matter what you do you cannot deny that gun deaths in the US as a whole are horrific when compared to countries like Canada. Instead of comparing a semi-rural state like Vermont with all of Canada why not compare regions that are similar.

How about Toronto and Chicago? They are about the same size and are not too far apart geographically. Also Chicago has a restriction on firearms; not quite as strict as Toronto's, but I wanted to close that loophole for you. Toronto in its worst year for murders by gun had 89. Chicago regards the 198 murders it had last year as an improvement over its usual rate. Of course, I could always cherry pick the way you do and throw in Detroit and its 365 murders. One a day - yes, that's about right. After all the Second Amendment is all about carrying a device designed to kill people.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Purely anecdotal. There is no concrete evidence that guns have any real impact on preventing crime in the US. All of the sources you presented in a previous thread were 20 years out of date and presented by pro-gun types. As I said, criminals being criminals if they do fear guns they will simply seek a softer target or carry guns themselves.



.

Wellllllll.............

"Applying those restrictions leaves 19
NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of
the sample), representing 1.5 million
defensive users. This estimate is directly
comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in

the last column of exhibit 7."

http://tscm.com/165476.pdf go to page nine. This is a 1994 US Department Of Justice study.

Please don't tell me the Clinton era US Department of Justice was "pro-gun". And defensive uses will only have gone UP, as this was before most states brought in right-to-carry laws.




Wrong. Do you have a driver's license? A license and fundamental training can be required for any activity where a device that might endanger the public is to be used.


.

Driving is not a Constitutional right. That said, I admit I do not have a problem with reasonable licensing requirements.

With all due respect. Anyone who requires 6000 rounds of ammo is either a damned poor shot, completely gun obsessed, or planing something unpleasant.

...or preparing for something unpleasant, as the right to keep and bear was intended to allow them to do....

Actually, I probably fire 100 rds of centre-fire a week, and I don't compete. Competitors can fire hundreds of rounds a day. Bulk is much, much cheaper.

I probably have 6,000 rounds on hand, if you include .22 rim fire.

What difference does the 5,850 rounds he didn't fire make???

No you are wrong. If military types weapons are protected under the Second Amendment why then are grenades, RPGs, machine guns, bombs, etc. restricted to the military? Any weapon can be restricted simply by requiring that it be used properly.

No, you are wrong. The idea is that the unorganized militia can show up to a fight bearing their own personal weapons.

I appreciate the ":Duh," it perfectly sums up your thinking. Sorry, Colpy, but when it comes to guns you are simply not rational. Quoting select stats from a few states does not in any way opbscure the fact that the death rate from firearms in the US is vastly higher than in any other similar nation on the planet. I'm sure that if you used Disneyland as part of your statistics you could prove that there are one or two safe places in the US. No matter what you do you cannot deny that gun deaths in the US as a whole are horrific when compared to countries like Canada. Instead of comparing a semi-rural state like Vermont with all of Canada why not compare regions that are similar.

How about Toronto and Chicago? They are about the same size and are not too far apart geographically. Also Chicago has a restriction on firearms; not quite as strict as Toronto's, but I wanted to close that loophole for you. Toronto in its worst year for murders by gun had 89. Chicago regards the 198 murders it had last year as an improvement over its usual rate. Of course, I could always cherry pick the way you do and throw in Detroit and its 365 murders. One a day - yes, that's about right. After all the Second Amendment is all about carrying a device designed to kill people.

I didn't pick the states. The person I was arguing claimed the states with higher rates of gun ownership had higher murder rates. I disproved that by using stats from the state with the HIGHEST rate of ownership, Wyoming. While I was there, comparing gun ownership rates, Brady rankings, and murder rates, I noticed the two lowest ranking murder states (Vermont and New Hampshire) both had abysmal Brady rankings of 6 points of a possible 100. They also had murder rates of 1.1 and 1.0 per 100,000....MUCH lower than the Canadian rate, so I threw them in.

The USA is a relatively safe place to live, extremely safe if you stay out of the inner cities.

That is what it all comes down to......

 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
So this degenerates into the usual as those without the mental equipment jump in.

Only when you show up. And I know this because I'm clearly right, anyone who has paid any attention to anything within the past decade will realize this, so there is no reason I have to demonstrate how I'm correct. My stating it simply makes it true.

You have no interest, inclination or capacity for discussion. You simply want to ramble on and expect everyone to take your word as gospel. Just because. So here's what you should do, start a blog and disable any comment features. That will give you everything your ego craves.

This constant, merely variations on a theme repeated postings of "I'm right and I'm not going to bother to explain myself because I'm superior because I say so" have gone beyond tedious. They have become the very epitome of mundane.

Leave discussion to those who have the capability to at least try to understand what their fellow human beings are saying. Because as far as discussion or debate goes, you are woefully under-equipped to participate.
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
Only when you show up. And I know this because I'm clearly right, anyone who has paid any attention to anything within the past decade will realize this, so there is no reason I have to demonstrate how I'm correct. My stating it simply makes it true.

You have no interest, inclination or capacity for discussion. You simply want to ramble on and expect everyone to take your word as gospel. Just because. So here's what you should do, start a blog and disable any comment features. That will give you everything your ego craves.

This constant, merely variations on a theme repeated postings of "I'm right and I'm not going to bother to explain myself because I'm superior because I say so" have gone beyond tedious. They have become the very epitome of mundane.

Leave discussion to those who have the capability to at least try to understand what their fellow human beings are saying. Because as far as discussion or debate goes, you are woefully under-equipped to participate.

So you want to take over from the Bear with your supercilious claptrap. You just cloud yours in more verbiage.

How about trying to contribute to discussion instead of trying to show how "superior" you are to those who do.

You try to find one argument that has been presented here that tops what I have posted about the American Constitution. And I happen to know more about the American Constitution than the great majority of Americans because, of the years I spent in studying various Constitutions (mostly Canadian) a considerable time was on the American.

I have also given the roots of this questionable paragraph. They are what I said they are.

Try to find reason for the perversion of those roots which is what has happened in the USA.

The Second Amendment does not give any unrestricted Right to carry guns. Only political calculations allow that.

Before this turns nasty, I suggest that you try to participate in the discussion instead of sniping.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
You try to find one argument that has been presented here that tops what I have posted about the American Constitution. And I happen to know more about the American Constitution than the great majority of Americans because, of the years I spent in studying various Constitutions (mostly Canadian) a considerable time was on the American.

.

The you should know that the US SJC ruled that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right of the people and not limited to those in a militia.

I'd say that the Justices of the US Supreme Court "tops" Cabbagesandking of CanCon wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
So you want to take over from the Bear with your supercilious claptrap. You just cloud yours in more verbiage.

How about trying to contribute to discussion instead of trying to show how "superior" you are to those who do.

You try to find one argument that has been presented here that tops what I have posted about the American Constitution. And I happen to know more about the American Constitution than the great majority of Americans because, of the years I spent in studying various Constitutions (mostly Canadian) a considerable time was on the American.

I have also given the roots of this questionable paragraph. They are what I said they are.

Try to find reason for the perversion of those roots which is what has happened in the USA.

The Second Amendment does not give any unrestricted Right to carry guns. Only political calculations allow that.

Before this turns nasty, I suggest that you try to participate in the discussion instead of sniping.

The problem is that discussion with you is simply impossible.

You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but did not even understand that "bear arms" means "carry weapons".

You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but have no idea of the mind set of the people that wrote it.

You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but have no clue what the militia is.

You obviously are incapable of reading comprehension in the English language, as you do not understand the basics of sentence structure.

You are not to be taken seriously.
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
The you should know that the US SJC ruled that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right of the people and not limited to those in a militia.

I'd say that the Justices of the US Supreme Court "tops" Cabbagesandking of CanCon wouldn't you?
For perhaps the twentieth time, the Right to Bear Arms is not the same as the Right to carry Arms. I have posted the arguments about militias, also.

A militia, in its historical place, is the whole of the able bodied population. And, its role was always to own Arms that it brought when called upon to do so, and at the musterings for training - they were quarterly events in British tradition and they were paid for them so that they were drunken parties that real training sessions.

The rest of the year the weapons were kept at home. Just like under gin control legislation where they are kept under lock and key until required for a legitimate purpose.

The problem is that discussion with you is simply impossible.

You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but did not even understand that "bear arms" means "carry weapons".

You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but have no idea of the mind set of the people that wrote it.

You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but have no clue what the militia is.

You obviously are incapable of reading comprehension in the English language, as you do not understand the basics of sentence structure.

You are not to be taken seriously.
What do you want to know about the minset of the people who spawned the US Constitution? IT was not what it is usually said to be in the praise for the times - just as with the Canadian.

It was actually an elitist document made by landed gentry and merchants that was to protect their positions. The high flown verbiage is fluff.

And, it is, as I said earlier, entirely derived from English Common Law. The only two innovations are: making no laws respecting religion and, the clause about contracts.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
For perhaps the twentieth time, the Right to Bear Arms is not the same as the Right to carry Arms. I have posted the arguments about militias, also.

A militia, in its historical place, is the whole of the able bodied population. And, its role was always to own Arms that it brought when called upon to do so, and at the musterings for training - they were quarterly events in British tradition and they were paid for them so that they were drunken parties that real training sessions.

The rest of the year the weapons were kept at home. Just like under gin control legislation where they are kept under lock and key until required for a legitimate purpose.


What do you want to know about the minset of the people who spawned the US Constitution? IT was not what it is usually said to be in the praise for the times - just as with the Canadian.

It was actually an elitist document made by landed gentry and merchants that was to protect their positions. The high flown verbiage is fluff.

And, it is, as I said earlier, entirely derived from English Common Law. The only two innovations are: making no laws respecting religion and, the clause about contracts.

My my, backing down pretty quickly, aren't you???

Be careful you don't trip. :)

Now, carefully explain to me why the right to keep and bear arms is included in the Bill of Rights in light of the following facts:

1. Militias are tools of state power.

2. The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on state power.

As well, why does the Amendment clearly state "the right OF THE PEOPLE" if it really means "the right of the state"?

In light of your answer, please explain: does the right of the people to free speech simply mean that you get to praise the state?

Explain.

Does the right of the people to assemble mean you only get to gather together to work for the state??

In view of your obvious view that "the people" REALLY means "the state" I am interested in your opinion on the right to vote.....does that mean you only get to vote for the incumbent???

Sarcasm aside, your entire thesis is ridiculous.

The old English Common Law right, on which you correctly claim the Second Amendment is based, is codified in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. It does not mention any militia, it recognizes the ancient right to keep arms "for their defense".
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
It is the heart-break of families trying to come to terms with their losses which occupies my thoughts as this story continues to unfold. In keeping with those thoughts I decided to post this article which I came across on the TSN website.

SUITOR: HOW MUSIC AND SPORTS CAN HELP THE HEALING PROCESS
GLEN SUITOR

He is just an athlete, but when Peyton Manning walked on the stage at a concert in Denver on Saturday night, it was once again an example of how sports and or music, can be such a positive influence in a community, especially, at this time, in a city like Denver, that is trying to come to grips with such a senseless tragedy.

The concert was Tim McGraw and Kenny Chesney, at the Sports Authority Field at Mile High in Denver and it was just a few days after a mentally disturbed 24-year-old man allegedly walked into a movie theater heavily armed in Aurora Colorado, killing 12 people and injuring many more.

A day before the theater shooting rampage, a friend of mine from Regina said that he had an extra ticket to the concert, if I could make it, which is how I ended up in Denver on Saturday night. It was a night I will never forget.

An emotionally charged crowd, still reeling from this tragedy, was inspired by two country singers and a pro football player, to begin the healing process, and to stick together through the adversity and the sadness that the entire community was facing.

Tim McGraw was the first headliner to hit the stage and with the jammed packed stadium, he quietly walked up to a mic to address the crowd.

In an emotional hello, he spoke of the senseless killings that occurred just days earlier, asked that everyone take time to pray for the families involved in the tragedy, and said he hoped that a night of music could in someway start the healing process in the Denver community.

It was amazing to feel the emotion at Mile High when he spoke, and then proceeded to put his heart and soul into every song that he sung on that stage. I have seen McGraw live many times before, but this show was different, this performance was for the people whose lives changed in a second at that movie theater in Aurora.

As McGraw set continued I watch people arm-in-arm swaying to the music, hugging each other and slow dancing in their seat to every song no matter what the tempo, there was a healing process going on as fans buried themselves in the music.

It was impossible to not get caught up in the emotion even though I was a visitor from another country and as McGraw's set came to an end, and people were waiting to see Kenny Chesney next, I could see and tell by the conversations I had with complete strangers, that music was helping them cope with something that no one could or probably ever will be able to get their head around.

Then it was Kenny Chesney's turn on stage and he put on a show with the same energy and, deep down from the heart emotion, as McGraw in a set that highlighted his upbeat summer tunes to possibly help take this audience away from their current reality, and it culminated in one of the most emotional moments that I have ever witnessed.

As Chesney finished singing his song, The Boys of Fall, which is a song about playing football and what it means to be on a football team, and part of that family, and what the game means to the community, out walks one of the newest members of the Denver Broncos, Peyton Manning. That very same day Manning had made personal phone calls to the families of the victims of the shooting in the hospital, to try and help in any way he could.

The stadium erupted and the emotion and sheer volume was louder than I have heard at any event. Moments earlier, as Chesney sang his football song, it was tough to find a dry eye in the house. It is not a new song but for a city that was saddened by this tragedy, it was a song that moved people, and then, as the last few notes were being played on the guitar, out walked the man that will give their football team, and in extension, the people of Denver hope. Yes Manning is just a football player, but the intensity in the stadium was electric, it was a moment that I don't think that anyone who was there to see it live will ever forget.

The Boys of Fall is also about the commitment to the guy beside you in the room and how if you stick together there is always hope. On this night when a community was looking for something to believe in again, they saw an all-star quarterback walk out at the end of this song, he didn't say a word, he didn't have to, the message his visit sent transcended football and music.

Football is a major part of this city and State. It is a city in mourning, and Manning on this night represented, even if just symbolically, that hope.

As I sat and watched thousands of people file out of the stadium I couldn't help but reflect on what I had just experienced, and so many things went through my mind. First there was that renewed perspective on life that people often get when senseless acts of violence occur in our society, that reminds you to enjoy the journey because you never know.

There was also this sense of being uplifted and inspired by a night of music and the presence of a star athlete. I started thinking about the start to the CFL season and the new stadium projects that are beginning in almost all CFL cities and the bigger picture as to what those new projects will mean to their communities.

The same experience and journey that I had just gone through, can and has happened when attending a live sporting event like a football game. At times especially when the home team struggles a football game will be less than memorable and will be forgotten the moment the team plays the following week.

But when it is right, when it has you up out of your seat on more than one occasion, when it is an example of determination, leadership, or maybe the resilience to continue on through tough odds, it is an experience that you won't be able to duplicate.

It can be a moment you share with your family, or a mother or father shares with a son or daughter, or it can be a three or four hour journey with a good friend. You are surrounded by people with a common interest, in a sporting event, the united loyalty of the home team, or in a concert, the love of music.

When you have thousands of people in the same place, going through the same emotional ride, it is intensified to a level that just can't be duplicated.

In the CFL this year we have already seen some great comebacks, like the Montreal/Calgary game two weeks ago or last weekends game in Calgary where the Stamps erased a 17-point deficit in the last eight minutes or so to win against the Riders.

A game where Calgary quarterback Kevin Glenn, after being the lightning rod of criticism all week, got up off the carpet and lead his team to victory.

There has also been some historic moments, like when Geroy Simon in front of a home crowd in B.C., became the all-time leader in receiving yards.

None of these games matched the magnitude of emotion that was experienced in Denver, but they are smaller examples of the power of sport or the power of music.

After seeing Tim McGraw and Kenny Chesney take thousands on a journey they will never forget, I now again understand why attending a sporting event or concert live is so important. When it is right, it creates a memory that will last a lifetime, and a bond with a friend or family member that is strengthened by the experience.

McGraw and Chesney took thousands on emotional ride that ranged from tears of reflection, to cheers of pure excitement.

Manning's appearance reminded everyone of the importance of the home team, and how maybe a quarterback and a couple of singers can provide hope to a community and help a city recover from a terrible tragedy.

A sporting event can do the same thing and to completely understand how, you have to be there in person.

Live events where people in the community come together,can have such a positive impact. A sporting event or a concert are important because they unite us and on Saturday night in Denver, they helped a city begin the healing process.

Suitor: How music and sports can help the healing process
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
A huge jaded part of me can't help but think that anyone really damaged and needing to heal from the shootings, wasn't at that concert. What that cnocert did isn't help people heal, it took them on a trip of emotional voyeurism, convincing them to act and feel momentarily as if they were all victims and had had their lives torn apart. Of course they left feeling 'healed', they went back to their routine and nothing was changed for them. People love to feel like they are a part of something, a part of history, and our propensity to be drama addicts spurs us to play some horrible mental tricks on ourselves sometimes.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
A huge jaded part of me can't help but think that anyone really damaged and needing to heal from the shootings, wasn't at that concert. What that cnocert did isn't help people heal, it took them on a trip of emotional voyeurism, convincing them to act and feel momentarily as if they were all victims and had had their lives torn apart. Of course they left feeling 'healed', they went back to their routine and nothing was changed for them. People love to feel like they are a part of something, a part of history, and our propensity to be drama addicts spurs us to play some horrible mental tricks on ourselves sometimes.

When such an incident as this takes place - I believe - the damage extends beyond those immediately affected. I also believe that this concert - no matter how momentarily diverting - helped drive at least some of the darkness from the souls of those in attendance. I believe that with a lighter heart and memories of shared joy, the citizens who attended the concert will be of much greater help to their community.




 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
For perhaps the twentieth time, the Right to Bear Arms is not the same as the Right to carry Arms. I have posted the arguments about militias, also.

A militia, in its historical place, is the whole of the able bodied population. And, its role was always to own Arms that it brought when called upon to do so, and at the musterings for training - they were quarterly events in British tradition and they were paid for them so that they were drunken parties that real training sessions.

The rest of the year the weapons were kept at home. Just like under gin control legislation where they are kept under lock and key until required for a legitimate purpose.

Sigh. You are so dense.

The US SJC has declared the Right to Bear Arms as Constitutional and a Right of the People. Bear also means carry. If I was wrong it would be illegal for me to carry a weapon. Yet I can. :)


What do you want to know about the minset of the people who spawned the US Constitution? IT was not what it is usually said to be in the praise for the times - just as with the Canadian.

It was actually an elitist document made by landed gentry and merchants that was to protect their positions. The high flown verbiage is fluff.

Nevertheless it is our Constitution. :) :)

And, it is, as I said earlier, entirely derived from English Common Law. The only two innovations are: making no laws respecting religion and, the clause about contracts.

Sigh. Hopeless you are.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
So you want to take over from the Bear with your supercilious claptrap. You just cloud yours in more verbiage.
I notice you didn't disagree with her though, lol.

How about trying to contribute to discussion instead of trying to show how "superior" you are to those who do.
That would exclude you, lol.

You try to find one argument that has been presented here that tops what I have posted about the American Constitution.
Easy, Colpy's.
I have also given the roots of this questionable paragraph. They are what I said they are.
Nope.
The Second Amendment does not give any unrestricted Right to carry guns.
Yes it does.

Before this turns nasty, I suggest that you try to participate in the discussion instead of sniping.
Advice you should heed yourself.

I'd say that the Justices of the US Supreme Court "tops" Cabbagesandking of CanCon wouldn't you?
I'd say so too.

And I happen to know more about the American Constitution than the great majority of Americans because, of the years I spent in studying various Constitutions (mostly Canadian) a considerable time was on the American.
I knew it was coming...
 
Last edited: