No, not rights, humans. ie I believe in humans have duties and responsibilities. I'd rather hold the scumbag responsible for a murder instead of blaming it on a gun that millions of citizens have not used to commit murder.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
No, not rights, humans. ie I believe in humans have duties and responsibilities. I'd rather hold the scumbag responsible for a murder instead of blaming it on a gun that millions of citizens have not used to commit murder.
From Reddit:
Here is the revolver my tiny Polish grandmother carried illegally for 50 years in Chigaco;
http://i.imgur.com/GOmIr69.jpg
It's a Remington No. 4.
She worked her whole life, starting as a seamstress, then a secretary, then saved up enough to buy one then a few apartment buildings and wound up owning some very prime Chicago real estate which put her squarely in the "rich old lady" category.
She carried this little guy from about 1940-1990, then she moved out of Chicago to someplace safer and stopped carrying it as regularly.
She always had it in her purse, and I asked her if she ever got busted, she said (with a gleam in her one good eye) "Act like you don't have it and no one will know."
She pulled it once to save herself and once to save someone else. Neither time resulted in shots fired or a call to the police. In her words "Boy, were they shocked! Their eyes got real big and they ran. I was ready to kill 'em."
She just passed away from a stroke. She was 98. Three kids, 7 grandkids, 4 great-grandkids.
Godspeed, Baba.
Here is the revolver my tiny Polish grandmother carried illegally for 50 years in Chigaco;
http://i.imgur.com/GOmIr69.jpg
It's a Remington No. 4.
She worked her whole life, starting as a seamstress, then a secretary, then saved up enough to buy one then a few apartment buildings and wound up owning some very prime Chicago real estate which put her squarely in the "rich old lady" category.
She carried this little guy from about 1940-1990, then she moved out of Chicago to someplace safer and stopped carrying it as regularly.
She always had it in her purse, and I asked her if she ever got busted, she said (with a gleam in her one good eye) "Act like you don't have it and no one will know."
She pulled it once to save herself and once to save someone else. Neither time resulted in shots fired or a call to the police. In her words "Boy, were they shocked! Their eyes got real big and they ran. I was ready to kill 'em."
She just passed away from a stroke. She was 98. Three kids, 7 grandkids, 4 great-grandkids.
Godspeed, Baba.
Obviously a hardened criminal who should have been sentenced to life without parole. Good thing she's dead.
Obama’s odd series of exaggerated gun claims
Obama’s odd series of exaggerated gun claims - The Washington Post
Obama’s odd series of exaggerated gun claims - The Washington Post
Believe as you must to keep America swimming in gun deaths. However, many of the average Americans who live in cities do not want to hunt nor want to have to protect themselves from others of their species. No matter how the gung ho gun lovers need the adrenalin rush of danger, the average person does not need constant threat to enjoy life.
There is not ONE day on the local news where I spend my winters when there has not been several incidences of gun violence. i.e. a day last week has two students jailed for taking guns to school. Why should either teachers or students need protection to teach or learn. Cherry picking the odd sane person who carried a gun for years, and waving it around does not counter the many killed in a shoot out. Those that managed to draw first are rare!! On the average criminals come prepared to shoot. Solution, find a way to educate and control the use of guns in a society is necessary. It seems to me an advanced, sane society should not depend on spending one's time finding a way to defending oneself!!. That is nutbar outlook to civilization!!
There is not ONE day on the local news where I spend my winters when there has not been several incidences of gun violence. i.e. a day last week has two students jailed for taking guns to school. Why should either teachers or students need protection to teach or learn. Cherry picking the odd sane person who carried a gun for years, and waving it around does not counter the many killed in a shoot out. Those that managed to draw first are rare!! On the average criminals come prepared to shoot. Solution, find a way to educate and control the use of guns in a society is necessary. It seems to me an advanced, sane society should not depend on spending one's time finding a way to defending oneself!!. That is nutbar outlook to civilization!!
Which is more dangerous: A gun or a swimming pool?
Number For children less than 15 years old
4.147 Swimming pool drowning deaths per 100,000 residential swimming pools
0.166—0.214 Accidental firearm deaths per 100,000 households with at least one firearm
0.039 Accidental firearm deaths per 100,000 firearms
Cause of death Per 100,000 population
All poisonings 13.9
Motor vehicle deaths 10.9
All firearm deaths 10.3
FastStats - Injuries
That is what we have been trying to tell you for years. TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM CRIMINALS.Not law abiding citizens.
An Easter egg for the gun nuts.
Sen. Rubio, Rep. Jordan propose repealing D.C. gun control laws
Sen. Rubio, Rep. Jordan propose repealing D.C. gun control laws - The Washington Post
Sen. Rubio, Rep. Jordan propose repealing D.C. gun control laws
Sen. Rubio, Rep. Jordan propose repealing D.C. gun control laws - The Washington Post
i Is gun ownership a legal right in Canada? 1993 Supreme Court decision concluded Canadians have no constitutional right to bear arms
Baloney MeterJul 31, 2014 12:35 PM ET Terry Pedwell, The Canadian Press
"To possess a firearm is a right, and it's a right that comes with responsibilities." — Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney at a news conference in Powassan, Ont., while announcing planned changes to Canada's gun laws, July 23, 2014.
media duration: 11:56play videoThe Canadian Press has examined Blaney's statement and put it to its baloney meter test — a dispassionate examination of political statements that culminates in a ranking of accuracy.
Spoiler: On a scale from "no baloney" to "full of baloney," the claim would appear, from a strictly legal standpoint, to meet the criteria for a "full baloney" grade.
By law, there is no right in Canada to possess firearms.
The facts
The right to bear arms has been a hotly debated topic in the United States for decades.
That right, say advocates, is deeply entrenched in the U.S. Constitution, and provided for in the Second Amendment that was adopted Dec.
15, 1791, as part of the United States Bill of Rights.
In Canada, such a right is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, although proponents of the notion argue that such a right exists.
But does it?
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it does not.
"Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms," the high court stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons.
"Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited," said the court.
The rights issue was tested again in the case of an Ontario firearms dealer and manufacturer.
Bruce Montague was charged with several weapons offences after police found more than 200 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition at Montague's home in northwestern Ontario.
Montague didn't renew the registrations on his weapons, convinced that he had a constitutional right to bear arms without government interference or regulation, despite the passage of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, in 1995.
Montague argued that he had "a constitutional right to possess firearms for self defence" derived from the constitution of Britain.
He pointed to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada's founding constitutional document, which in his view imported the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which states in Article 7: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
Montague further argued that in 1982, this historical right was shielded from any ordinary legislation by section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads: "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada."
His convictions were upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal and in September 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear a final appeal, without offering reasons.
Montague is facing further legal troubles after the Ontario Court of Appeal further ruled last month against his challenge of the Criminal Code's automatic forfeiture provisions.
That, after a judge ordered most of his weapons cache — including sub-machine guns, assault rifles and sawed off shotguns — be turned over to the province of Ontario. He may also lose his house to forfeiture.
The right to gun ownership in Canada has been far from universally accepted throughout the country's history, says Saint Mary's University associate professor Blake Brown.
Many 19th-century lawyers — including Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald — believed in a limited right to bear arms, Brown wrote in his book, Arming and Disarming, a History of Gun Control in Canada.
An 1869 law that prohibited people from carrying "offensive weapons" did not mention firearms.
During his tenure as prime minister, Macdonald generally opposed new gun laws, arguing that "citizens needed arms to protect themselves from American criminals who crossed into Canada," wrote Brown.
And even though the British Bill of Rights declared a guarantee of arms to men "for their defence suitable to their condition," the federal government declared that right invalid in 1885, because it deemed aboriginal peoples incapable of full citizenship and didn't want to afford them such a right.
Skip forward 130 years to a recent news conference where Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney outlined proposed changes to Canada's gun laws, publicly reopening the debate by stating that "to possess a firearm is a right."
Blaney has not since clarified what he meant by "right," nor has his office responded to several inquiries about whether the minister was stating government policy.
But critics immediately called the statement into question.
The courts have laid to rest any argument that Canadians have an absolute or legal right to own guns, says the Coalition for Gun Control.
"Quite simply, (Blaney) is wrong," said the coalition's Wendy Cukier.
But gun ownership is a rights issue, says Sheldon Clare, president of Canada's National Firearms Association.
The debate about firearms control has been centred on the issue of public safety since the late 1960s, said Clare. He pointed to the RCMP seizure of guns from homes in flood-ravaged High River, Alta., in 2013.
The Mounties cited safety concerns as a reason for confiscating guns from homes they had entered while looking for flood victims and pets.
But many gun owners called that reasoning into question, accused the police of violating their rights and called the operation an unwarranted search and seizure.
"It is time to challenge that falsehood — firearms control is not a public safety issue," Clare wrote recently on his association's website.
"It is a property and personal rights issue."
The conclusion
Governments since Confederation have framed laws that are much more in line with gun possession being a "privilege" that is regulated and licensed, similar to laws that allow Canadians to drive cars.
However, there remains a strong divide on the issue between gun control proponents and advocates of the right to own firearms.
For those reasons, Blaney's statement earns him a rating of "full of baloney."
Methodology
Sources:
- Supreme Court of Canada Judgements, R. v. Hasselwander, May 19, 1993.
- University of Alberta, Centre for Constitutional Studies
- "Ontario Court Confirms No Right to Bear Arms in Canada; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Appeal," Oct. 4, 2010
- Firearms Act, 1995
- The Right To Keep And Bear Arms In Canada website
- English Bill of Rights, 1689.
- Arming and Disarming, a History of Gun Control in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2012.
- Canada's National Firearms Association website
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/is-gun-ownership-a-legal-right-in-canada-1.2723893
Three questions about the above:
1. Since when do governments get to declare rights "invalid"??
2. Since when do the Courts consider a gov't declaration of rights as "invalid" to be valid?
3. Do you have to be slammed in the head with a brick to be appointed to the bench in this country?
The above simply reinforced my belief that Yes, Virginia, there is a limited right to keep arms in Canada.
Last edited:
Supreme Court rules Quebec's long gun registry data can be destroyed - Politics - CBC News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally like to caution people about the concept of human 'privileges'because in my opinion it spawns a bad attitude towards human rights.
In my opinion, concepts like freedom and liberty are a starting point. They clearly define government as a body that doesn't grant rights, they can only defend or infringe on them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news
1993 Supreme Court decision concluded Canadians have no constitutional right to bear arms
Baloney MeterJul 31, 2014 12:35 PM ET Terry Pedwell, The Canadian Press
"To possess a firearm is a right, and it's a right that comes with responsibilities." — Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney at a news conference in Powassan, Ont., while announcing planned changes to Canada's gun laws, July 23, 2014.
The Canadian Press has examined Blaney's statement and put it to its baloney meter test — a dispassionate examination of political statements that culminates in a ranking of accuracy.
Spoiler: On a scale from "no baloney" to "full of baloney," the claim would appear, from a strictly legal standpoint, to meet the criteria for a "full baloney" grade.
By law, there is no right in Canada to possess firearms.
The facts
The right to bear arms has been a hotly debated topic in the United States for decades.
That right, say advocates, is deeply entrenched in the U.S. Constitution, and provided for in the Second Amendment that was adopted Dec.
15, 1791, as part of the United States Bill of Rights.
In Canada, such a right is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, although proponents of the notion argue that such a right exists.
But does it?
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it does not.
"Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms," the high court stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons.
"Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited," said the court.
The rights issue was tested again in the case of an Ontario firearms dealer and manufacturer.
Bruce Montague was charged with several weapons offences after police found more than 200 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition at Montague's home in northwestern Ontario.
Montague didn't renew the registrations on his weapons, convinced that he had a constitutional right to bear arms without government interference or regulation, despite the passage of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, in 1995.
Montague argued that he had "a constitutional right to possess firearms for self defence" derived from the constitution of Britain.
He pointed to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada's founding constitutional document, which in his view imported the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which states in Article 7: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
Montague further argued that in 1982, this historical right was shielded from any ordinary legislation by section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads: "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada."
His convictions were upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal and in September 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear a final appeal, without offering reasons.
Montague is facing further legal troubles after the Ontario Court of Appeal further ruled last month against his challenge of the Criminal Code's automatic forfeiture provisions.
That, after a judge ordered most of his weapons cache — including sub-machine guns, assault rifles and sawed off shotguns — be turned over to the province of Ontario. He may also lose his house to forfeiture.
The right to gun ownership in Canada has been far from universally accepted throughout the country's history, says Saint Mary's University associate professor Blake Brown.
Many 19th-century lawyers — including Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald — believed in a limited right to bear arms, Brown wrote in his book, Arming and Disarming, a History of Gun Control in Canada.
An 1869 law that prohibited people from carrying "offensive weapons" did not mention firearms.
During his tenure as prime minister, Macdonald generally opposed new gun laws, arguing that "citizens needed arms to protect themselves from American criminals who crossed into Canada," wrote Brown.
And even though the British Bill of Rights declared a guarantee of arms to men "for their defence suitable to their condition," the federal government declared that right invalid in 1885, because it deemed aboriginal peoples incapable of full citizenship and didn't want to afford them such a right.
Skip forward 130 years to a recent news conference where Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney outlined proposed changes to Canada's gun laws, publicly reopening the debate by stating that "to possess a firearm is a right."
Blaney has not since clarified what he meant by "right," nor has his office responded to several inquiries about whether the minister was stating government policy.
But critics immediately called the statement into question.
The courts have laid to rest any argument that Canadians have an absolute or legal right to own guns, says the Coalition for Gun Control.
"Quite simply, (Blaney) is wrong," said the coalition's Wendy Cukier.
But gun ownership is a rights issue, says Sheldon Clare, president of Canada's National Firearms Association.
The debate about firearms control has been centred on the issue of public safety since the late 1960s, said Clare. He pointed to the RCMP seizure of guns from homes in flood-ravaged High River, Alta., in 2013.
The Mounties cited safety concerns as a reason for confiscating guns from homes they had entered while looking for flood victims and pets.
But many gun owners called that reasoning into question, accused the police of violating their rights and called the operation an unwarranted search and seizure.
"It is time to challenge that falsehood — firearms control is not a public safety issue," Clare wrote recently on his association's website.
"It is a property and personal rights issue."
The conclusion
Governments since Confederation have framed laws that are much more in line with gun possession being a "privilege" that is regulated and licensed, similar to laws that allow Canadians to drive cars.
However, there remains a strong divide on the issue between gun control proponents and advocates of the right to own firearms.
For those reasons, Blaney's statement earns him a rating of "full of baloney."
Methodology
Sources:
© The Canadian Press, 2014
- Supreme Court of Canada Judgements, R. v. Hasselwander, May 19, 1993.
- University of Alberta, Centre for Constitutional Studies
- "Ontario Court Confirms No Right to Bear Arms in Canada; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Appeal," Oct. 4, 2010
- Firearms Act, 1995
- The Right To Keep And Bear Arms In Canada website
- English Bill of Rights, 1689.
- Arming and Disarming, a History of Gun Control in Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2012.
- Canada's National Firearms Association website
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/is-gun-ownership-a-legal-right-in-canada-1.2723893
Three questions about the above:
1. Since when do governments get to declare rights "invalid"??
2. Since when do the Courts consider a gov't declaration of rights as "invalid" to be valid?
3. Do you have to be slammed in the head with a brick to be appointed to the bench in this country?
The above simply reinforced my belief that Yes, Virginia, there is a limited right to keep arms in Canada.
I personally like to caution people about the concept of human 'privileges'because in my opinion it spawns a bad attitude towards human rights.
In my opinion, concepts like freedom and liberty are a starting point. They clearly define government as a body that doesn't grant rights, they can only defend or infringe on them.
Why compare swimming pools to guns. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. They are made for that express purpose!! A swimming pool, an automobile are made for recreation and travel respectively. Does the average gun lover have a brain block to this fact??
The government we elect is there to enact the rules we as a society wish to live by. If a constitution is so set in stone that it cannot be changed, it can no longer serve the society that formed it. Being able to change laws or modify those that are more harmful to society as a whole , restricts human progress from the caveman or tribal state to a civilized Democracy.
We have changed many of our laws to reflect the kind of society we wish to live in. I, for one like living in the type of society that Canadians have formed.
One of the rules:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How to change the rules:
To Propose Amendments
- In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.
- Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
- Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
- Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.
Or, if you are talking about Canada, an amendment could be made to the Charter specifically removing the ancient right to keep arms, or a "notwithstanding" clause could be added to firearms legislation........
Most amendments can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate and two thirds or more of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50 per cent of the national population. This formula, which is outlined in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is officially referred to as the "general amendment procedure" and is known colloquially as the "7+50 formula".
So, the rules are there, and they include a right to keep arms.
There is a process to change those rules.
Nobody wants to be bothered, or at least not enough people to actually change the rules....
So, your post is pointless.