These people are the public and should be able to decide what is safe for them or not. Were not talking about rights to own nuclear weapons. (The public should have final say so as to what is dangerous to them or not)
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
These people are the public and should be able to decide what is safe for them or not. Were not talking about rights to own nuclear weapons. (The public should have final say so as to what is dangerous to them or not)
"Anyone that would surrender their liberty for a little security deserves neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin Franklin
And if you can't see anyone's rights being violated, it is because your eyes are firmly closed.
Along with your mind.
Au contraire I don't see anyone's rights being violated because I consider inspections as provided for in the Act to be within "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". If the Supreme Court rules otherwise I'll be there with bells on to see 102 struck down. Will you finally register your guns if the Court rules it can stand?
Last edited:
And the loss of the right to remain silent to not be forced to incriminate yourself?? I guess you don't care to deal with that.......
BTW, the right to keep arms was not granted in 1689....it was merely recognized as an ancient right of the people at the time.
The right exists irregardless of the law, the government, or the Supreme Court. It is one of the natural rights of man.......to be secure in their person, and to defend oneself, one requires the ability to do both.
Chew on that for awhile...
I have registered firearms.
nice wording. All the ones the law requires?
Which Charter article does section 103 violate?
The right to say nothing?
nah. Way too much of a stretch. The right to say nothing isn't absolute. You're on your own on that one. I'd say it does more good than harm. Wouldn't be sad to see it go but it's going to up the cost of enforcement. Shouldn't be an issue to someone who's willing to be accountable.
You just obviously favor someone to take care of you more closely than we do. Nothing wrong with that, we just rely more on ourselves than any law can do to protect ourselves. After a gun is used it is to late. You do need something like our 2nd Amendment, not ever changing Charter Articles.
I also drink alcoholic beverages and drive an urban assault vehicle, both also make possible the violent deaths of thousands of Americans each year; should I quit? Should you or anyone else? I don't drink and drive, nor do I drive my Suburban like a maniac, nor do I use firearms in an irresponsible manner, and until I do any of these things I am considered innocent until proven otherwise.
They call it "bear spray" for a reason, it is a repellant. Bears are either defending their young or their territory, (and may not be detered anyway), human assailants on the other hand are coming after you for a reason, and may be very dedicated. An assailant on a mission of intent will not be stopped by a repellant whether it is a knife or bear spray, (police know how well pepper spray works, or not, against a dedicated agressor). You shoot to incapacitate the agressor, two shots to the chest and one to the head may be required and are usually justified in the end. On average for law enforcement officers 1 shot out of five hits its intended target in a firefight, occasionally a bystander gets hit, but rarely does it inflict a fatal wound, (armed citizens average twice as good as law enforcement). A 12 Gauge shotgun loaded with SSG or 000 buck has between 7 - 12 pellets of similar diameter to a 9mm exiting the muzzle at approximately the same velocity of a 9mm pistol. Quite a bit more potential for collateral injury.
Gee, last time I checked I had my arse planted firmly in Canada, sure we're talking about gun control, but mostly how it appllies here. All firearms are easily transported, rifles can be made easily concealable, semi autos can be made fully auto. So what? Because someone can use anything for a nefarious purpose shouldn't preclude anyone else from owning it for ligitimate purposes. But still, the firearms that have been relegated to the prohibited list have rarely been used in this country for criminal purposes.The bogey men are there but idiots are chasing their tools. I just cannot understand how condemning the hammer is going to control the hand that swings it.
I can't see how you would be giving up your right to security by someone else expressing their own. Ahh, but you defer your security to the state, now I get it. You feel the state should provide you with security, it is your right. What shall you give up for that right? You can give up your liberty, but you have no right to make me give up mine. NEWSFLASH, the state cannot guarantee your security.
Ah yes, once again, the rationale of the tyrant... "well, if you've nothing to hide, you don't mind being forced to speak, having cameras on your street, letting us search your house, having us open your mail, eavesdrop on your telephone conversations.....I mean, it is all for the sake of your security"
You really don't have any grasp at all on the concept of liberty, do you?????
The Charter:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:8
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:8http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:8http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:8
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:26
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:26http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:26http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/charte/1.html#codese:26
How to Get the Police to Respond Really Quickly
Did you hear about the guy who called the police because he saw some people stealing things out of the shed in his back yard?
The police asked him if they were in his house and he said, "No."
Then the police said that all units were busy and he should lock his doors. They would send someone as soon as they could.
The guy hung up, waited 30 seconds and called back.
"I just called you about the people stealing things out of my shed.
Well, don't worry about it, I shot them."
In less than five minutes, police cars screeched into his driveway, sirens blaring, and caught the thieves red-handed.
"I thought you said you shot them," said the officer.
"Thought you said no one was available," he replied.
Did you hear about the guy who called the police because he saw some people stealing things out of the shed in his back yard?
The police asked him if they were in his house and he said, "No."
Then the police said that all units were busy and he should lock his doors. They would send someone as soon as they could.
The guy hung up, waited 30 seconds and called back.
"I just called you about the people stealing things out of my shed.
Well, don't worry about it, I shot them."
In less than five minutes, police cars screeched into his driveway, sirens blaring, and caught the thieves red-handed.
"I thought you said you shot them," said the officer.
"Thought you said no one was available," he replied.
Quote: Originally Posted by geiseric
nice wording. All the ones the law requires?
Which Charter article does section 103 violate?
The right to say nothing?
nah. Way too much of a stretch. The right to say nothing isn't absolute. You're on your own on that one. I'd say it does more good than harm. Wouldn't be sad to see it go but it's going to up the cost of enforcement. Shouldn't be an issue to someone who's willing to be accountable.
Ah yes, once again, the rationale of the tyrant... "well, if you've nothing to hide, you don't mind being forced to speak, having cameras on your street, letting us search your house, having us open your mail, eavesdrop on your telephone conversations.....I mean, it is all for the sake of your security"
You really don't have any grasp at all on the concept of liberty, do you?????
The Charter:
<B>Quote:</B><B>Quote: </B>
Quote:11.Any person charged with an offence has the right<B>Quote:
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
</B><B>Quote: </B>
That all fine and dandy for legitimate Canadians but when you are an unregistered gun toting ceritifable crazy terrorist it is meaningless.
You have no Charter when you opted out of being a legitimate citizen who upholds the law.
There are no marshmallow roasts at Camp X-Ray.
I don't treat "liberty" like it's on the throne where God used to be. If give up a little liberty every time I come to a complete stop at a stop sign. If I live long enough to get to grow my own pot for personal use I'd be more than happy to let the cops in every once in a while to count my plants, especially if they call ahead, if that's what the law requires. Hell, I'd hold the ladder for them if they wanted to check my attic.
Last edited:
Is it just me??? but it seems that all the anti gun people are, or used to be pot smoking left wing hippies
Is it just me??? but it seems that all the anti gun people are, or used to be pot smoking left wing hippies
Just you. The anti gun people are city slickers and mostly control freaks that have never fired a rifle so of course no one else should either. Most pot smokers I know play with rifles and hunt. But then I have mostly lived in rural areas where we don't recognize laws we don't agree with. Just like the natives.
Is it just me??? but it seems that all the anti gun people are, or used to be pot smoking left wing hippies
But
But
But
I'M an ex pot smoking, ex left wing, ex hippie....................(if you doubt the hippie thing, go to my photo albums....irrefutable proof)
And I ALWAYS had a whack 'o guns.
YEa except for the small matter that it is not the RCMP that come and count your rifles. It is the PC Long Gun Registry bureaucrats that come and they are permitted under the act to enter your home at any time with no warning or warrant to see if you might possibly be breaking some rule.
That is not quite true.
They have to arrange a time for inspection, and they are restricted to the area they can inspect.......
UNLESS they suspect (on reasonable grounds) that you might refuse.......THEN they can apply for a warrant without any evidence of any crime being committed.....that is where the problem arises with inspections. Under no circumstances should a legal warrant for search EVER be issued without evidence of some crime having been committed.......
Then we go on to the right to avoid self-incrimination... (to be silent)
The problem with Geiseric is he simply doesn't understand, nor care about, the basic principles of individual rights. Like most Lefties, he is in love with a Charter that he does not begin to understand.
I challenge Geiseric to find any other aspect of law that allows search for evidence of violations of the Canadian Criminal Code without either hot pursuit, eminent danger, or warrant issued on the basis of evidence as a primary factor of the authorities entering your home....
Good luck.
But
But
But
I'M an ex pot smoking, ex left wing, ex hippie....................(if you doubt the hippie thing, go to my photo albums....irrefutable proof)
And I ALWAYS had a whack 'o guns.
My mistake ....They have to be still smoking that shyte to have so much faith in the police and the government:smile:
I always thought that it was a wig in that picture:lol:
Nope....it is completely natural....those were the days.......
I'll never get over dope smokers that trust the gov't that would throw them in jail....
Not real sensible.