Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[bluebyrd35]

You only get to live in peace because others have guns to protect that right.
Big difference between chatting to a group of hunters and dealing with someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night.

Come now, there is a big difference between a group intent on hunting game and someone who intends to hunt in someone's house.

In Canada,independence was achieved through negotiation. Instead of uprisings and fighting, rule of law was chosen. i.e. Police forces who"s salaries we pay. Canadian freedom did not come as result of a war. It would seem a system born through violence tends to continue in that vein. I do not understand why some people in Canada feel so threatened as to stockpile enough guns equal to a small country's armory.

People these days lose more through stolen identities and computer/credit card fraud than anything than could have been taken at the end of a gun. Times have changed. A person can lose a life's savings by a fancy talker quicker and easier that risking jail time by a thief using a gun. The best thieves do not tote a gun, they sell a line. It is only the dumb and crude that result to violence to get a pittance.

 

[waldo]

You do not have a basic constitutional right to either cars or cigarettes.....you do have a right to keep arms.

right? Or privilege; one subject to regulation and license? Where does the foundation for your described "right" to keep/bear arms in Canada exist?

​

 

[JamesBondo]

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should mean that any restriction should be defended and justified rather than the actual activity that is being restricted.

 

[waldo]

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should mean that any restriction should be defended and justified rather than the actual activity that is being restricted.

what "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Look, I appreciate all the gun(g)-ho American wannabe gunners in this thread just luv to speak as if they're actually Americans... just luv to talk up the American Constitution (particularly its 2nd amendment) and rally round the U.S. NRA, but c'mon... that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thingee is just more fawning for Merika! Unless you're actually an American, perhaps have a go at something Canadian... say, like... "peace, order and good government"!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

what "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Look, I appreciate all the gun(g)-ho American wannabe gunners in this thread just luv to speak as if they're actually Americans... just luv to talk up the American Constitution (particularly its 2nd amendment) and rally round the U.S. NRA, but c'mon... that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thingee is just more fawning for Merika! Unless you're actually an American, perhaps have a go at something Canadian... say, like... "peace, order and good government"!

Damn, waldo, I actually agree with you! Ain't that strange?

It is true that the U.S. and Canada have taken distinctly different views on society, government, and the relationship of the individual to the state, reflected in the Constitution vs. the Charter, and even in how the two countries gained their independence. And I see advantages to both ways.

So seeing as how we're all buddies now, I have a serious question for you. Let's leave aside the Constitution and all that stuff and go with the English common law that our countries share. It's generally recognised that the right to self defence predates all positive law, that it is more than a right, it is a basic feature of the human condition. You are alive, and you have the right to do anything at all to keep somebody from killing you.

That's part one. Here's part two: many scholars have argued, and some courts have agreed, that possessing a right is useless unless one has the means to exercise that right. For example, if the government banned private possession of printing presses, the right to a free press wouldn't mean much.

Now, given that the right to self defence exists, and given that guns trump all other weapons as effective for self defence, would you recognise an argument that the right to own a gun is necessary to effectuate the right of self defence?

Again, spare me the charts and statistics. Just think it over and give me your thoughts. I promise to keep this discussion free of gun-nut rhetoric.

 

[Colpy]

what "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Look, I appreciate all the gun(g)-ho American wannabe gunners in this thread just luv to speak as if they're actually Americans... just luv to talk up the American Constitution (particularly its 2nd amendment) and rally round the U.S. NRA, but c'mon... that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thingee is just more fawning for Merika! Unless you're actually an American, perhaps have a go at something Canadian... say, like... "peace, order and good government"!

Ahhh...I read this post from Waldo.

As usual, I find him whiny, idiotic, and lying through his teeth.

First of all, I have explained to Waldo the basis for the CANADIAN right to keep arms. (the Charter, sec. 26, and the English Bill of Rights, sec. 7)

I also explained to him the difference between the right as enjoyed in Canada, and the Second Amendment.

And, I also explained to Waldo how what was acceptable under one constitutional law might not be under another.

This was, of course, beyond Waldo's limited powers of comprehension, crippled as he is by a lack of creative imagination, an (at best) average IQ, an inability to engage in critical thinking, and an absolute dearth of reading comprehension skills.

But, as usual, despite my attempt to educate Waldo on CANADIAN constitutional law, and the difference between CANADIAN constitutional law and the American constitution, and my careful explanation of why more control is constitutionally acceptable in CANADA than in the USA, the "gentleman" in question went off like some severely retarded fire cracker, and has done nothing but yell "American Wannabe" at me ever since.

Waldo has severe intellectual, emotional, and psychological problems.

As I am not trained as a ward nurse for the Psychologically Damaged, nor the Pathologically Insane, I put him on my "don't bother" list.

In short, he is an idiot, and a natural born troll.

Don't bother with him.

Back on "ignore" he goes.............the one and only.

 

[DaSleeper]

There's to much common sense in what you just said there Tecumseh!

 

[waldo]

First of all, I have explained to Waldo the basis for the CANADIAN right to keep arms. (the Charter, sec. 26, and the English Bill of Rights, sec. 7)

Colpy, are you so intimidated by the waldo that you must forever pepper your posts with such a plethora of insults? Are you so lacking in your own position/argument that you can't actually write anything... anything... without such extensive inclusion of gross insults? :mrgreen:

the right to bear arms in Canada - the facts:

- Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398

"Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited."
​

- Ontario Court Confirms No Right to Bear Arms in Canada; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Appeal


you're welcome, Colpy... carry on!

Damn, waldo, I actually agree with you! Ain't that strange?

Again, spare me the charts and statistics. Just think it over and give me your thoughts. I promise to keep this discussion free of gun-nut rhetoric.

I'm off for a few pops... I'll think on it.... I may even reply (tomorrow)!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm off for a few pops... I'll think on it.... I may even reply (tomorrow)!

Good enough.

 

[JamesBondo]

what "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Look, I appreciate all the gun(g)-ho American wannabe gunners in this thread just luv to speak as if they're actually Americans... just luv to talk up the American Constitution (particularly its 2nd amendment) and rally round the U.S. NRA, but c'mon... that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thingee is just more fawning for Merika! Unless you're actually an American, perhaps have a go at something Canadian... say, like... "peace, order and good government"!

Well gee, it was used in the American declaration of independence. But the concept doesn't exist in an american bubble, genius.

Canada has it's own variation...

In section 2 of the charter, we talk about fundamental freedoms
In section 7 of the charter, we talk about life and liberty

 

[bluebyrd35]

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should mean that any restriction should be defended and justified rather than the actual activity that is being restricted.

Now, that is a downright stupid assumption. The right to fundamental freedoms such as life, liberty is UNDER the law and not to be taken as the right to viigilant action.

 

[waldo]

Well gee, it was used in the American declaration of independence. But the concept doesn't exist in an american bubble, genius.

oh pleeese! Don't backpedal on your U.S. wannabe self! That phrase you used is direct... verbatim... from the U.S. Constitution.

Canada has it's own variation...

ya, like I said: "peace, order and good government"

 

[DaSleeper]

You sure like to argue single sentences without even looking at, or rather completely ignoring the context!

 

[waldo]

hey Locutus!!! As a part of the new role you've taken on in responding to member requests to re-post otherwise ignored posts... so the IGNORER can (presumptively) see the IGNOREE's post... can you re-post the following, so member Colpy can see it? :mrgreen: Thanks muchly!

---

Colpy, are you so intimidated by the waldo that you must forever pepper your posts with such a plethora of insults? Are you so lacking in your own position/argument that you can't actually write anything... anything... without such extensive inclusion of gross insults? :mrgreen:

the right to bear arms in Canada - the facts:

- Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398

"Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited."
​

- Ontario Court Confirms No Right to Bear Arms in Canada; Supreme Court Will Not Hear Appeal


you're welcome, Colpy... carry on

 

[JamesBondo]

! That phrase you used is direct... verbatim... from the U.S. Constitution.

I just googled the US Constitution, then used the "find" feature on my browser to look for 'pursuit of happiness', and it produced " 0 results"

Now, that is a downright stupid assumption. The right to fundamental freedoms such as life, liberty is UNDER the law and not to be taken as the right to viigilant action.

I was speaking about whether we start with infinite rights, and the government restricts them, or whether we start with no rights and the government grants them. Which one do you think we have?

You sure like to argue single sentences without even looking at, or rather completely ignoring the context!

Yes, it is called "The Waldo".

 

[Colpy]

I just googled the US Constitution, then used the "find" feature on my browser to look for 'pursuit of happiness', and it produced " 0 results"

.

That would be because the phrase "pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the US Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Waldo has no clue, as usual.

 

[JamesBondo]

That would be because the phrase "pursuit of happiness" does not appear in the US Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

But isn't that what I said? I thought "the waldo" was always correct and when he isn't correct he was always willing to man up.

 

[DaSleeper]

But isn't that what I said? I thought "the waldo" was always correct and when he isn't correct he was always willing to man up.

Now that made me laugh out loud...

 

[Locutus]

heh

 

[Colpy]

But isn't that what I said? I thought "the waldo" was always correct and when he isn't correct he was always willing to man up.

Yep. That is what you said.

I had to reference your post, as Waldo is on my ignore list.

Actually, Waldo IS my ignore list.