Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Spade]

RCMP concerned as Conservatives consider loosening firearms restrictions - thestar.com
Those concerned about looser gun regulations in Canada should contact their MPs.

 

[Bremusa]

Actually, Bremusa, on this subject I'm with Colpy.-

well have fun with :

The right to safety

While you are at it ,can you work into the conversation for me:

How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin

Bremusa

 

[CDNBear]

Human Rights in New Zealand Today: Chapter 7 The right to life, liberty and security of personYou Google it. It does.
The following NZ summary also applies to Canada.

Fail.

Life, liberty and security of person, does not mean what you think it does. In you large quote further down the page, it details what security of person means.

You should reread it.

you found one, way to go.

One of thousands.

The almighty has spoken.

At least he's right.

 

[Spade]

Fail.

Life, liberty and security of person, does not mean what you think it does. In you large quote further down the page, it details what security of person means.

You should reread it.

One of thousands.

At least he's right.

No, pass.
The right to security of the person protects physical integrity, which has traditionally taken the narrow focus of protection from direct physical trauma. However, emerging standards are beginning to include providing for: the necessities of life (such as sustenance or healthcare); the right to social security; and protection of health and safety, particularly in employment (Jayawickrama, 2002). These issues are addressed in other chapters and so are not included here.

 

[Colpy]

No, pass.
The right to security of the person protects physical integrity, which has traditionally taken the narrow focus of protection from direct physical trauma. However, emerging standards are beginning to include providing for: the necessities of life (such as sustenance or healthcare); the right to social security; and protection of health and safety, particularly in employment (Jayawickrama, 2002). These issues are addressed in other chapters and so are not included here.

Reading Comprehension simply is NOT your strong point, is it???

The word "safety" appears in this quote exactly ONCE, after the qualifications "EMERGING" and "BEGINNING" and before the qualification "PARTICULARLY IN EMPLOYMENT".

there is no right to safety.

If there were, you could not drive, as in doing so you threaten the safety of others. Just for one tiny example.

Only a complete drooling idiot would believe in the remotest possiblity of a right to safety.

That would include, of course, the entire staff of most Human Rights Commissions, where the above garbage came from......

 

[CDNBear]

No, pass.
The right to security of the person protects physical integrity, which has traditionally taken the narrow focus of protection from direct physical trauma. However, emerging standards are beginning to include providing for: the necessities of life (such as sustenance or healthcare); the right to social security; and protection of health and safety, particularly in employment (Jayawickrama, 2002). These issues are addressed in other chapters and so are not included here.

Nope, still a fail.

You're placing the general populace in the place of the state. That's not how it works. But keep trying if you must.

Here, this is how it is interpreted in Canadian law...

Section 7 can extend beyond the sphere of criminal law, at least where there is "state action which directly engages the justice system and its administration."

CanLII - Section 7

 

[JamesBondo]

As the one comment stated, the man did not go poking around in the crawlspace because he was having problems removing the widescreen tv from the wall. His intentions were truly evil.

 

[Tonington]

Baloney.

"Security of the person" refers to the right to be free from torture and cruel and unusual punishment, and to be granted the rights of habeas corpus when imprisoned.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with safety.

I'll see your baloney and raise you to cod swallup. Read Supreme Court decision in R. v. Morgentaler. The Criminal Code of Canada was found to be unconstitutional because it violated a woman's Section 7 rights. In fact Justice Beetz explicitly mentions the health of a woman in his opinion.

 

[CDNBear]

I'll see your baloney and raise you to cod swallup. Read Supreme Court decision in R. v. Morgentaler. The Criminal Code of Canada was found to be unconstitutional because it violated a woman's Section 7 rights. In fact Justice Beetz explicitly mentions the health of a woman in his opinion.

That's true, but the context in which section 7 is written and enforced, as Colpy and I have tried to get through to some is, is in the states power over the citizenry.

 

[taxslave]

RCMP concerned as Conservatives consider loosening firearms restrictions - thestar.com
Those concerned about looser gun regulations in Canada should contact their MPs.

Well its a start but there is a long way to go yet.

 

[Tonington]

That's true, but the context in which section 7 is written and enforced, as Colpy and I have tried to get through to some is, is in the states power over the citizenry.

Colpy has said that section 7 'has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with safety.'

That is simply false. Maybe he's ignorant of the relevant cases, but then I wonder why he would be so supremely confident about how Section 7 has been interpretted. In fact how can it be interpretted that fundamental justice does not include harm and therefore personal or collective safety? Harm is a significant consideration in the delivery of justice. If the application of a law harms the health of a person or group of people, then it very much is not fundamental justice. Other cases have taken this view when considering laws banning private health care.

For Colpy to state so steadfastly that this section of the Charter does not have anything to do with health is simply wrong. It may be a controversial section of the Charter, but that by itself should evoke cautious statements about it's application, not what Colpy has stated at all.

 

[Spade]

I wonder how Public Safety Canada interprets it?

 

[Colpy]

Colpy has said that section 7 'has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with safety.'

That is simply false. Maybe he's ignorant of the relevant cases, but then I wonder why he would be so supremely confident about how Section 7 has been interpretted. In fact how can it be interpretted that fundamental justice does not include harm and therefore personal or collective safety? Harm is a significant consideration in the delivery of justice. If the application of a law harms the health of a person or group of people, then it very much is not fundamental justice. Other cases have taken this view when considering laws banning private health care.

For Colpy to state so steadfastly that this section of the Charter does not have anything to do with health is simply wrong. It may be a controversial section of the Charter, but that by itself should evoke cautious statements about it's application, not what Colpy has stated at all.

Private health care is not banned. Good Lord!!

You at least are on the right track....rights are limitations on the power of gov't.............so yes, security of the person limits the gov'ts ability to cause an individual harm.

That is NOT a right to safety.

I never said the clause had nothing to do with Health, I said it was NOT a "right to safety".

I'll see your baloney and raise you to cod swallup. Read Supreme Court decision in R. v. Morgentaler. The Criminal Code of Canada was found to be unconstitutional because it violated a woman's Section 7 rights. In fact Justice Beetz explicitly mentions the health of a woman in his opinion.

Which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with any delusional RIGHT TO SAFETY, which is what we are arguing.

Damn this is starting to frustrate me.

You folks are being bloody obtuse.

 

[Spade]

Not too badly really in Canada. There was another shooting here this evening. That makes 4 in Florida alone!! Since, I have listerned to only two news broadcasts, perhaps there were more. How many people were shot in the whole of Canada today??

Check here.
https://twitter.com/GunDeaths

 

[Bremusa]

Reading Comprehension simply is NOT your strong point, is it???

The word "safety" appears in this quote exactly ONCE, after the qualifications "EMERGING" and "BEGINNING" and before the qualification "PARTICULARLY IN EMPLOYMENT".

there is no right to safety.

If there were, you could not drive, as in doing so you threaten the safety of others. Just for one tiny example.

Only a complete drooling idiot would believe in the remotest possiblity of a right to safety.

That would include, of course, the entire staff of most Human Rights Commissions, where the above garbage came from......

There is no right to safety.

Who speaks like this?

You come and make up some inane term and argue about it.

For days.


It's about as important as pocket lint, and as interesting.

But carry on, your a hoot .

I can't wait for more.


Bremusa

Private health care is not banned. Good Lord!!

The person never said that.
I just watched you lambaste someone for their reading skills.

where does Tonington say anything about it being banned

Other cases have taken this view when considering laws banning private health care.

You called me an idiot and I shall bust your crimes on this forum .

LOL

Bremusa

 

[Colpy]

Poll: 51 percent don

 

[DaSleeper]

Poll: 51 percent don

Your gonna love this............... right of the tube

Alex Jones Vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control Live On CNN - YouTube

Pay back time ....His own tacticts used against him...:lol:

But at the end......:roll:

 

[CDNBear]

Colpy has said that section 7 'has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with safety.

Within the context I already mentioned.

You can pick nits all you want. In the end he's still right. Section 7 has not been interpreted to convey positive rights, nor does it place any positive obligations on the government.

I wonder how Public Safety Canada interprets it?

The same way Colpy and I have been trying to get you guys to grasp...

Life, liberty and security of the person under the Charter (91-6E)

Enjoy.

 

[taxslave]

Poll: 51 percent don

But their opinion doesn't count because you know they are so very very wrong and don't know what they want.

 

[bluebyrd35]

Your gonna love this............... right of the tube

Alex Jones Vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control Live On CNN - YouTube

Pay back time ....His own tacticts used against him...:lol:

But at the end......:roll:

My Gwad and this is the type of person who wants keep access to assault weapons?? How scarey is that!!

No, pass.
The right to security of the person protects physical integrity, which has traditionally taken the narrow focus of protection from direct physical trauma. However, emerging standards are beginning to include providing for: the necessities of life (such as sustenance or healthcare); the right to social security; and protection of health and safety, particularly in employment (Jayawickrama, 2002). These issues are addressed in other chapters and so are not included here.

It seems to me the more socially advanced we become, the more we should expect our laws and government to reflect that. That is not a bad thing in my opinion.

For thrills try risking money starting a business, or take up sky diving. box, wrestle, etc. The caveman HAD to fight or die and I suspect we would not be around if they did not run often,considering the type of animals they had to contend with. It is disturbing to see these days that the fight reflex is so much more prevelant in some than is the flight reflex. At least with the latter, one does often live to see another day.