Gun Control is Completely Useless.

DaSleeper

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Curious Cdn said:
Now ladders ... They're a real problem. Ontario has ladder restrictions

http://www.wsps.ca/Information-Resources/Topics/Ladders.aspx

(we're not very freedom loving, here) but a national ladder list has climbers all over protesting that their Charter rights are being violated.
Click to expand...
Did you have a license to buy that ladder?
If it's too short to reach the roof? You need a restricted ladder license!
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
VIBC said:
The 'Bill of Rights' with its 'Unlimited right to keep and bear arms' and 'The Courts' being referred to are part of the legal system in the allegedly-United States of America. They have no validity in Canada, no place in our law, and I believe the great majority of Canadians are thankful for that.

"You've got your troubles, I've got mine."
Click to expand...


Yep.


There is no unlimited right to bear arms in Canada.


There is, however, a limited right to keep arms for defense. This is recognized in the English Bill of Rights of 1689........part of our constitutional heritage.



It is not a privilege, and it definitely and specifically indicates "for defense", not hunting........


And I don't give a rat's ass what the Canadian courts say, I can read. And rights do not exist at the pleasure of the state.
 
V

VIBC

Electoral Member
Mar 3, 2019
673
0
16
Colpy said:
I don't give a rat's ass what the Canadian courts say
Click to expand...
If that's really true I'm sad that you're even in the country, rodent anatomyy notwithstanding.

I can read.
Click to expand...
We can all read here, obviously. (For some , writing is another story :))

rights do not exist at the pleasure of the state.
Click to expand...
Rights are functions of human thought and agreement. How and why they should exist or come to exist or be upheld or enforced is a complex issue open to many interpretations. It is clear to me that they can only exist by consensus - and that there will always be people who scorn the rights of others.
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Rights do exist at the pleasure of the state.

In times of war they are in many cases restricted or suspended.
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,133
9,423
113
Washington DC
VIBC said:
Rights are functions of human thought and agreement. How and why they should exist or come to exist or be upheld or enforced is a complex issue open to many interpretations. It is clear to me that they can only exist by consensus - and that there will always be people who scorn the rights of others.
Click to expand...
Well put. I would add that "rights" that do not exist by broad consensus are those that tend to vanish most quickly and easily.
 
V

VIBC

Electoral Member
Mar 3, 2019
673
0
16
Hoid said:
Rights do exist at the pleasure of the state.
Click to expand...

I think that's a too-narrow interpretation of the word. The rights declared by the state exist at the "pleasure" of the state, obviously. But any two or more people, groups, organisations can mutually decide their rights with respect to each other. I may even extend 'rights' towards you that fit my personal ethics even if you do not reciprocate.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
VIBC said:
If that's really true I'm sad that you're even in the country, rodent anatomyy notwithstanding.


We can all read here, obviously. (For some , writing is another story :))


Rights are functions of human thought and agreement. How and why they should exist or come to exist or be upheld or enforced is a complex issue open to many interpretations. It is clear to me that they can only exist by consensus - and that there will always be people who scorn the rights of others.
Click to expand...


deTouqueville : the tyranny of the majority.


Doesn't work.



Imagine the Confederate States. Was there a consensus that slavery was a violation of human rights?


No.



Imagine Nazi Germany (phuck Godwin) Was there a consensus that that the Holocaust was a violation of human rights?


No.


Imagine Communist China. Was there a consensus that the Cultural Revolution was a violation of human rights? (It killed somewhere between 40 and ninety million people)


No.


I could go on for pages, but you get my point. If you leave rights to the state, then rights do not exist, they are merely momentary privileges.


Even those guys that penned the Bill of Rights of 1689 knew better than to pretend the document granted rights.........instead they merely recognized "ancient rights". The Americans as well got it correct; rights are inherent, granted by natural law.


Originally Posted by Hoid
Rights do exist at the pleasure of the state.
​
Click to expand...


Only an idiot believes that. Rights are often violated by the state, they are not granted by the state. Please see above. According to your theory, no rights were violated in the slave states of the USA, in the Chinese mass murderers, or in the German genocide.


How ridiculous is that?


BTW, you are still ignored, I saw this quoted in VIBC's post. Don't bother answering.
 
Last edited:
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
the rights that clompy is talking about - the second amendment no doubt - exist at the pleasure of state, and are infringed upon and restricted all the time

carry your gun into an American airport and let them know about your unlimited right to bear arms
 
V

VIBC

Electoral Member
Mar 3, 2019
673
0
16
Colpy said:
deTouqueville : the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

When a majority makes a decision, individuals can characterise it as tyranny, or democracy, or balsphemy or idiocy or good common sense or anything at all. Suggesting that all majority decisions are tyranny would be very foolish.


I could go on for pages,
Click to expand...


I see that, and it no doubt achieves your goal of just bludgeoning down any contrary point of view. It does with me anyway.
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/colorado-manhunt-columbine-anniversary-1.5101530

Interesting gun control story with this young woman who is infatuated with the Columbine shootings. She left Colorado - went to Florida - bought a pump action shot gun and ammo and has disappeared after making some social media threats. 20 schools went on lock down

Now why would she leave Colorado and go to Florida?

Is it easier to buy a gun in Florida?

How can it be easier to buy a gun in one state vs another when the unlimited right to own a gun is a federal right?

Can you make the gun shop or possibly gun maker pay for all the law enforcement costs?
 
Last edited:
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Determining rights and freedoms is not done by popular vote as far as i know.

You vote for the representatives and they decide in consultation.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
VIBC said:
When a majority makes a decision, individuals can characterise it as tyranny, or democracy, or balsphemy or idiocy or good common sense or anything at all. Suggesting that all majority decisions are tyranny would be very foolish.





I see that, and it no doubt achieves your goal of just bludgeoning down any contrary point of view. It does with me anyway.
Click to expand...


Who would suggest that majority rule is tyranny? Certainly not I. I would suggest it can be tyranny, and sometimes is......but that is obvious.


As for my debating style, Yep.......I use a sledgehammer. You argue to win. I've already made up my mind on this subject, so there is no discussion with antis, just argument.


I stay reasonably polite as long as the opposition does......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom