[eureka]

I have no compunction in labeling John Lott as a "Gun Nut." Any more than the NRA itself.

Here are a couple that disagree that CC reduces crime.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/detail ... Concealed-
Carry%20Laws%20Do%20Not%20Reduce%20Crime/

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x152646 ... ate-impact

[BartSimpson]

eureka eureka:

I have no compunction in labeling John Lott as a "Gun Nut."

I doubt John Lott would care about the ramblings of a poseur.

[ShepherdsDog]

bart didn't you know that in his world, he's an expert in every field....especially when it comes to fertilizing it.

[eureka]

Your unfailing wit must be what makes you so well accepted here. There is nothing else.

[ShepherdsDog]

eureka eureka:

I'm a fake and I admit it. You've all discovered that I'm a fraud.

[Gunnair]

Roe Roe:

Once again, when the back is against the wall out come the personal attacks.

Their is nothing at all witty about that.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

$1:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares: “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.”5 This right, which reflects a universal and
historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny,6 was not recognized in
the German Reich.

While I appreciate the sentiment, why does the US constantly insist that it's laws and it's Consitution should be recognized anywhere and everywhere outside of US borders?
The US has one set of rights. Canada has another set of rights. Australia, Britain, France, etc, etc.., all have differing versions of rights. And while many of those rights find commonality amoung the more civilized nations, there are variations. And where those variations occur, the American version isn't God's final word on the subject.

[eureka]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

$1:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares: “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.”5 This right, which reflects a universal and
historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny,6 was not recognized in
the German Reich.

While I appreciate the sentiment, why does the US constantly insist that it's laws and it's Consitution should be recognized anywhere and everywhere outside of US borders?
The US has one set of rights. Canada has another set of rights. Australia, Britain, France, etc, etc.., all have differing versions of rights. And while many of those rights find commonality amoung the more civilized nations, there are variations. And where those variations occur, the American version isn't God's final word on the subject.

What is not well known is that the Second Amendment is derived from English Law. That means it was the law in many democratic nations until they outgrew it and the law was changed to reflect the changed social needs and conditions.

That applies to the US also but changing some things there is as difficult as the Judgement of Paris.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

While I appreciate the sentiment, why does the US constantly insist that it's laws and it's Consitution should be recognized anywhere and everywhere outside of US borders?

It'd be nice if the rest of the world would f*ck the hell off and stop trying to force us to ban guns and free speech but since you won't we end up having to remind the rest of you that our rights are not subject to negotiation. By the way, Canada lost it's arguable right to non-interference from the USA when your government officially took sides in our 2000 and 2004 elections. If you think it's funny to interefere in our elections then we'll reciprocate by agitating for Canadians to demand their rights as Canadians (bastards, aren't we?).

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The US has one set of rights. Canada has another set of revocable privileges. Australia, Britain, France, etc, etc.., all have differing versions of revocable privileges.

The USA is currently the only country in the world that has enshrined its rights into law without clever little addendums buried in the same law that essentially reduces the list of 'rights' to mere window dressing. Canada has the charming notwithstanding clause that can be invoked to impose unlimited martial law if that's what your government wants to do.

In this country every so often it happens that a police officer crosses the line with a civilian who then defends himself or his family with lethal force and the civilian walks out of court a free man because he has the right to defend himself and to assert his rights.

Let's see you cite just one case like that taking place anywhere else in the world.

As for Canada, you people don't have property rights and the right to own something is the very most fundamental human right because the right of ownership is what historically distinguishes the serfs from the nobility.

No one, not a single person, in Canada has alluvial title to their property because all property is Crown property. Your land, your home, your car, your clothes, and, ultimately, your person.

No sir, you do not have rights. You have revocable privileges that your betters can give and take with impunity.

Does this pi** you off? I hope so. I hope you're p'od enough to write to your MP and demand that Canada adopts a bill of rights that doesn't have an 'out' clause when those rights become inconvenient for your government.

[eureka]

You need to look at Canada's Bill of Rights, Bart. It is cast in stone except for certain areas that can be suspended when they cross the Rights of Others. The Notwithstanding clause is unfortunate but it is not all that different than practise in the USA.

It was included at the insistence of certain provinces to ensure the Constitutional Sovereignty of the provinces who were concerned that power would shift from Parliaments to Courts. With some justification. I think that was less important than the opening for Provincial government abuse - the only way it has been used.

Of course Canadians have property Rights. More than half the offenses in the Criminal Code are related to crimes against property.

That it took so long for a Charter of Rights in Canada was for the very valid reason that much expert opinion sees that as a restriction of the Rights that are enshrined in English Common Law.

As in the USA where some of your Constitutional Rights are maintained to the detriment of others. Your "Right to bear arms" contradicts the Right to Life of many Americans. 10,000 gun homicides a year mostly because of that ancient and anachronistic "Right."

Your untrammelled "Freedom of Speech" works to restrict the freedoms of others and to expose them to hatred, racial discrimination, physical danger.

I hope this inspires you to write to your Congressman demanding that a two century old document tortured to death for generations in attempts to modernise it, and subject to the whims of a politically constituted Court, be revised to make it amenable to the reflection of modern mores.

[eureka]

You need to look at Canada's Bill of Rights, Bart. It is cast in stone except for certain areas that can be suspended when they cross the Rights of Others. The Notwithstanding clause is unfortunate but it is not all that different than practise in the USA.

It was included at the insistence of certain provinces. Quebec and Alberta, wouldn't you know. to ensure the Constitutional Sovereignty of the provinces.

Of course Canadians have property Rights. More than half the offenses in the Criminal Code are related to crimes against property.

That it took so long for a Charter of Rights in Canada was for the very valid reason that much expert opinion sees that as a restriction of the Rights that are enshrined in English Common Law.

As in the USA where some of your Constitutional Rights are maintained to the detriment of others. Your "Right to bear arms" contradicts the Right to Life of many Americans. 10,000 gun homicides a year mostly because of that ancient and anachronistic "Right."

Your untrammelled "Freedom of Speech" works to restrict the freedoms of others and to expose them to hatred, racial discrimination, physical danger.

I hope this inspires you to write to your Congressman demanding that a two century old document tortured to death for generations in attempts to modernise it, and subject to the whims of a politically constituted Court, be revised to make it amenable to the reflection of modern mores.

[Dragon-Dancer]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Dragon-Dancer Dragon-Dancer:

They could still be at your gun club. I'll bet they are involved in all that unreported crime we keep hearing about.

Well Dragon, I think we should all work together to turn unreported crime into reported crime. From now on, whenever I see someone who does not clean up after their dog, I'm calling the PMO.

[BartSimpson]

eureka eureka:

You need to look at Canada's Bill of Rights, Bart. It is cast in stone except for certain areas that can be suspended when they cross the Rights of Others. The Notwithstanding clause is unfortunate but it is not all that different than practise in the USA.

It was included at the insistence of certain provinces to ensure the Constitutional Sovereignty of the provinces who were concerned that power would shift from Parliaments to Courts. With some justification. I think that was less important than the opening for Provincial government abuse - the only way it has been used.

Of course Canadians have property Rights. More than half the offenses in the Criminal Code are related to crimes against property.

That it took so long for a Charter of Rights in Canada was for the very valid reason that much expert opinion sees that as a restriction of the Rights that are enshrined in English Common Law.

As in the USA where some of your Constitutional Rights are maintained to the detriment of others. Your "Right to bear arms" contradicts the Right to Life of many Americans. 10,000 gun homicides a year mostly because of that ancient and anachronistic "Right."

Your untrammelled "Freedom of Speech" works to restrict the freedoms of others and to expose them to hatred, racial discrimination, physical danger.

I hope this inspires you to write to your Congressman demanding that a two century old document tortured to death for generations in attempts to modernise it, and subject to the whims of a politically constituted Court, be revised to make it amenable to the reflection of modern mores.

No, but it has inspired me to up my NRA membership from Life to Benefactor.

As to revising our Constitution to make it more suitable to Euroweenies? No. It won't happen.

Not without a war at least.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

While I appreciate the sentiment, why does the US constantly insist that it's laws and it's Consitution should be recognized anywhere and everywhere outside of US borders?

It'd be nice if the rest of the world would f*ck the hell off and stop trying to force us to ban guns and free speech but since you won't we end up having to remind the rest of you that our rights are not subject to negotiation. By the way, Canada lost it's arguable right to non-interference from the USA when your government officially took sides in our 2000 and 2004 elections. If you think it's funny to interefere in our elections then we'll reciprocate by agitating for Canadians to demand their rights as Canadians (bastards, aren't we?).

Uhhhh yeah. The political wing of the NRA has been fucking around in Canada since long before 2000. Not to mention that your "complaint" is rather amusing coming from someone from a country that has stuck its nose in oh so many other nations' political affairs without being asked!

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The USA is currently the only country in the world that has enshrined its rights into law without clever little addendums buried in the same law that essentially reduces the list of 'rights' to mere window dressing. Canada has the charming notwithstanding clause that can be invoked to impose unlimited martial law if that's what your government wants to do.

Uh huh, and who enshrined them? Did God come down and ordain the document? It was written by man and it can be taken away by man. Man and gov'ts change old and enact new laws on a somewhat regular basis. How many times have those "inviolate" rights in that Constitution of yours been amended??
Nah, all you've done is deluded yourself into believing that because something was "enshrined" into law, it can never be changed.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

As for Canada, you people don't have property rights and the right to own something is the very most fundamental human right because the right of ownership is what historically distinguishes the serfs from the nobility.

No one, not a single person, in Canada has alluvial title to their property because all property is Crown property. Your land, your home, your car, your clothes, and, ultimately, your person.

Now yer just talking out your ass. The ONLY property that is Crown property is the land. And of course, as we ALL know, no one in the history of the US Constitution has ever been removed from their property for any reason. Or were those just summer camps that sprang up in 1942 for the Japanese-Americans? And how is that right to own property working out for the millions of Americans who have had, or are still at risk for having their homes repossesed by the same assholes that essentially caused the homeowners to go into default in the first place?? From what I've seen, the rights of a few to be paid millions for fucking over an entire nation and a good portion of the global economy, far supercedes the rights of property ownership for the many in the good ol' USA.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No sir, you do not have rights. You have revocable privileges that your betters can give and take with impunity.

Does this pi** you off? I hope so. I hope you're p'od enough to write to your MP and demand that Canada adopts a bill of rights that doesn't have an 'out' clause when those rights become inconvenient for your government.

Why would it piss me off? All I've seen is a rant by someone who as I said, has deluded themselves into believing their rights are "inviolate" because the law says so. A law enacted by...you guessed it, man.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

....

If you think your rights are so mercurial that they can be abrogated by the stroke of a pen then they were never rights to begin with, just mere privileges.

Like I said.