Did you know that of the 87% you state are male, that 90+% of them are in prison because of females?
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Did you know that of the 87% you state are male, that 90+% of them are in prison because of females?
Are you incapable of coherent, rational and logical argument? The above pile of non sequiturs and outright stupidity suggest that you are not.
First, kindly try to keep your bile down for long enough to explain how the election is the only Poll (survey, actually, for the Registry) that counts? It has sweet FA to do with it. The Registry is one issue among scores and all will have differing scores.
Then, the last survey done showed that 62% and I am not terribly interested in a Toronto Sun distortion.
The Right to bear Arms was a Right to defend the established order as a member of a militia. It was never a Right to carry arms for any other purpose.
I have already explained the origins in England and they are not in the English Bill of Rights as any absolute Right.
The Right of the people indicates what I said it does. It is not an inalienable individual Right - a foolish term, btw.
Why do you think that the "Right," as the proponents see it, has been extinguished in all the Common Law counties without successful challenge - except for the USA?
If you continue to sling around the idiot slurs, then I will get a little more abrasive and the same applies to taxslave.
I am rather surprised at ou raising Kopel, a notorios libertarian. There are many more reasonable thinkers on both sides. And Kopel clearly is deficient in his understandong of some of the background English thinkers and jurists.
Coke was a defender of the state and a Parliamentarian. He maintaines that the people had the Right to remove a government but never said it was through violent means.
His decisions on the Stamp Act and on another case influenced the American framers but they had already been discarded in England where Blackstone saw Parliament as sovereign and did not advocate for any Right of the people to bear Arms for other than the traditional militia purpose.
As far as the American Constitution goes, nowhere do I see any support for a Right to remove government by any means other than democratic ones. Always it is related to a militia and a militia, both organized and unorganized is for the defense of the realm not its overthrow.
Going back into antiquity, much the same applies. Tortured interpretations of meanings do not make support.
Where the **** do you come up with this crap?
Did you notice the comma seperating the two entities of "militia" and "the people"?
The little details are the ones that **** you over everytime aren't they?
And then some idiot comes along and totally ignores the topic just to comment on the insults.
...or toting a bag of pot around. Gotta watch out for those murderous pot smokers.
Anyway, as I keep saying, criminals don't care what laws there are, overcontrol or ban something and it will go underground, this is Canada and not the USA, Canadians are not Americans, the Gliberals implemented a useless registry on spurious grounds.
Are you the same bloody idiot I argued with that claimed "to bear" did not mean "to carry"???
I'll tell you what, come back and argue with me after you have first learned English comprehension, and have some education in history.
Oh, BTW, the LAST survey on the long gun registry was taken among 289 elected MPs from across the country. They overwhelmingly voted against it.
Deal with it. It is called democracy.
The comma is there because it is require for grammatical purposes. It does not affect the meaning only its clarity
Which are for the very reasons that have been stated.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong.
Clarity? Do you want clarity? I can clarify this in terms that are very clear.
Are you game?
You are beyond redemption. Hopelessly thick.
I spent a horrible night last night; dreaming that I would have to read your inane, insane posts and be doomed to having to constantly respond to your ignorance.
The difference between you an colpy is that you are just a little less aggressive in pushing your density.
I had hoped that some more thoughtful posters would join in since gopher tried to turn this into a rational debate. I don't have time for the research.
He didn't debate you, he simply proved you completely wrong, lol.
That explains how your posts can be so wrong, lol.
Sorry, but commas do affect contexts.
IE
Now can we eat, Mum?
Now can we eat Mum?
And yes, "to bear" means "to carry".
He already posted his cop out.
Not according to the leading UN author, Cabbage.
Ban the Cabbage Sands and it's King!!!
Perphaps Scabbage doesn't know that someone in a militia is known as a soldier and soldiers will be armed by ...........neccessity.
Civilians aka "The People" are not soldiers but still are given the RIGHT to bears arms as well.
Clarity.
How do you like clarity now Scabbage?
Perphaps Scabbage doesn't know that someone in a militia is known as a soldier and soldiers will be armed by ...........neccessity.
Civilians aka "The People" are not soldiers but still are given the RIGHT to bears arms as well.
Clarity.
How do you like clarity now Scabbage?
Of course they do, though in many cases they do not. As with writers who don't want to know about commas. Gertrude Stein for one.
The point is that a comma doses not do what petros tries to maintain. It does not alter my interpretation of militia.
And bear does not mean to carry. Bear Arms has a military connotation. Carry is indiscriminate. And that is a huge difference that comes to the heart of the militia role.
Militia are not soldiers: not military, except for the organized militia in the USA: the National Guard and even they are not soldiers until they are called to duty.
Militias are composed of civilians who are called upon to defend their state in times of crisis. Like the Home Guard in England during the last war.
Feel free to troll on a different forum then. After all real men and women used guns to give you that right.