PDA

View Full Version : Note to Canada’s Firearms Organizations



CLW .45
03-01-2018, 09:30 PM
Are we pro-gun?

Am I pro-gun?

The correct answer when answering for myself, and who am I to answer for others, I am pro-rights.

You have a right to life.

You have a right to property.

You have a right to speak freely.

You have a right to keep and bear arms.

As a pro-rights individual I advocate for your rights.

Your right to defend the lives of your loved ones.

Your right to own and use your property.

Your right to speak truth to power.

Your right to go armed for the defence of your loved ones, your neighbours, your nation.

As a member I am the gun lobby.

As such I will never ask you to give up your guns, your devices, your ammo, your uses, or your aspirations - in the vain hope that I will maintain my own. That would be a vile betrayal of my fellows.

Some have, on virtually every forum, demanded that you abandon your property and aspirations to protect theirs. Because theirs is good, and mainstream, while yours is controversial, and beyond the pale. Vile indeed.

Shall we all get together and tell Ralph Goodale, as I did this evening, to either step up and ban everything - or stop this unending war on us?

MetisWolf
03-02-2018, 12:50 AM
You have a right to keep and bear arms.
Your right to go armed for the defence of your loved ones, your neighbours, your nation.

Actually, no we don't. We have no law that says this, anywhere.
We are not America.

RangeBob
03-02-2018, 01:15 AM
You have a right to keep and bear arms.
Actually, no we don't. We have no law that says this, anywhere.
We are not America.

Probably correct, at least in practice.

The Supreme Court Of Canada said we have no enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
R. v. Wiles 2005
That's correct as far as it goes -- it's not enumerated in our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.

But there's some debate about the right itself existing, as a natural right, or as a historically Canadian right.
For years all kinds of firearms laws were not passed in Canada because MPs asserted the right to bear arms was a right Canadians held.
The place the right came to the USA is the same place the right should have come to Canada, historically and philosophically.
But it remains a tough sell.



Your right to go armed for the defence of your loved ones, your neighbours, your nation.
Actually, no we don't. We have no law that says this, anywhere.
We are not America.

Probably wrong, with some qualifications.

There are several cases at various levels of the courts that assert that necessity trumps other laws, and if you have to defend your loved ones, your neighbours, or your nation, with your guns, that's just fine.
But my goodness does it have to be reasonable in the totality of the circumstances, as agreed by your peers, use-of-force rules, and beforehand & afterwards in absolute accordance with the Law (e.g. safe storage).

Last month that was expressed by the


Mr. Stanley was lawfully justified in the circumstances of this case to retrieve his handgun and fire it into the air as warning shots
-- Chief Justice Martel Popescul, 2018/02/14, Battleford Saskatchewan
hxxp://nationalpost.com/news/canada/full-transcript-of-judges-instructions-to-colten-boushie-jury-put-yourself-in-a-jurors-shoes

Grimlock
03-02-2018, 08:31 AM
Actually, no we don't. We have no law that says this, anywhere.
We are not America.

Your rights do not exist because they are granted by law.
It is true that we are not America. They stand up for their rights.

CLW .45
03-02-2018, 11:05 AM
Actually, no we don't. We have no law that says this, anywhere.
We are not America.

Actually, we do.

And the failure of government to recognize it merely makes exercise of the right hazardous.

Rights do not emanate from legislation.

LB303
03-02-2018, 11:29 AM
One could argue convincingly that any time a law is enacted, it's to restrict your rights.

FallisCowboy
03-02-2018, 11:35 AM
Actually, no we don't. We have no law that says this, anywhere.
We are not America.

You are so wrong. Rights vs law, two completely different fish, but governments would like everyone to believe they are the same thing. It makes your subjugation and exploitation so much safer and easier for them if you do. Rights are something we all have by the very nature of being born human, they have existed for much longer than any form of organized government and will continue to exist as long as mankind exists. They may be acknowledged or sometimes even entrenched in law (see Magna Carta and US Bill of Rights), but that only makes them easier to defend in courts of law, it does not make them just go away if they are not written down. Law comes from governments and as such is subject to the evils that are inherent in all of us and especially those that find themselves in positions of power over their fellow citizens. Anytime government infringes on our rights there is always a possibility the "we the people" will just say no. In the case of effectively armed citizens it becomes just that much easier to say no if necessary because the usual response of governments is to declare our refusal an infringement of law and then use violence to enforce that "law"....for what they then call "our own good". It is possible to say no, however, even if the general population is unarmed. This was demonstrated by Ghandi, when he defeated the British Empire at the height of it's colonial power by "just saying no" or as it is now called civil disobedience.

6482

murph83
03-02-2018, 11:44 AM
We have natural rights, obviously, but the fact that our rights have never been put into writing( property rights, gun rights, castle laws etc) is were this country got it all wrong. Furthermore, the fact that the citizens at the time did not demand that these rights be written into our constitution should tell you how weak minded Canadians have been since the start. The fact that the Canadian government has never taken it upon themselves to enshrine any of the above rights into the charter at anytime should tell you all you really need to know about the mindset of Canadians.

FallisCowboy
03-02-2018, 12:01 PM
We have natural rights, obviously, but the fact that our rights have never been put into writing( property rights, gun rights, castle laws etc) is were this country got it all wrong. Furthermore, the fact that the citizens at the time did not demand that these rights be written into our constitution should tell you how weak minded Canadians have been since the start. The fact that the Canadian government has never taken it upon themselves to enshrine any of the above rights into the charter at anytime should tell you all you really need to know about the mindset of Canadians.

This actually tells me more about the nature and desires of those individuals that make up our government most of the time. I don't blame those that built this country; after all most of them came here to escape the excesses of their governments in their country of origin. Of course they had been subjected to many generations of social conditioning before they got here and those that stepped up to form the first government here had come from service in those same corrupted governments. It is a very difficult thing to eliminate the corruption that goes along with having power over others. Our current Prime Moron and his minions are a classic example of the years of inbred corruption known as the "Laurentian Elite".

IJ22
03-04-2018, 08:56 AM
Actually, no we don't. We have no law that says this, anywhere.
We are not America.

Haven't you heard? Laws don't grant or revoke rights, they uphold them or violate them.

MetisWolf
03-04-2018, 09:50 AM
Haven't you heard? Laws don't grant or revoke rights, they uphold them or violate them.

Ok, sure. But our rights have to be written somewhere, in order for the law to uphold or violate them.
If there is no written right, then it is not legitimate.

People cannot spew the same "We have a right to...." as the American's do, here in Canada. Because it does not apply here.

Doug_M
03-04-2018, 09:53 AM
Natural rights MetisWolf, natural rights. Governments recognize or infringe upon natural rights.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Steveo9mm
03-04-2018, 12:38 PM
peoplekind have the right to pay tax and um wear socks. uh, they have the right to um, wave gay pride flags. there will never be a right to defend yourself because if you kill your enemys... they win

Jay.ec
03-04-2018, 01:10 PM
That's ok. The phrase "stupid people win stupid prizes" comes to mind. So on that note, if being dead is the prize for "winning" then I'd rather lose.

IJ22
03-04-2018, 08:42 PM
Ok, sure. But our rights have to be written somewhere, in order for the law to uphold or violate them.
If there is no written right, then it is not legitimate.

People cannot spew the same "We have a right to...." as the American's do, here in Canada. Because it does not apply here.

Worked for LGBTQ... Worked for gay marriage. Worked for women in the army. You have to stand for your rights and press for the law to be changed. If you resign yourself to not having rights until something is written somewhere you'll be in a virtual gulag forever.

MetisWolf
03-04-2018, 09:17 PM
Worked for LGBTQ... Worked for gay marriage. Worked for women in the army. You have to stand for your rights and press for the law to be changed. If you resign yourself to not having rights until something is written somewhere you'll be in a virtual gulag forever.

And how do we exactly decide what those rights are? Where do we find these rights? Thus kind of my point, how can the law infringe on or enforce rights, if we don't even know what they are. I know someone mentioned "Natural Rights", but how do you define those too? Where do they end? If there is no written "rights" other then those already defined, how do you define them? What makes it so i cannot make something up?

IJ22
03-04-2018, 11:47 PM
And how do we exactly decide what those rights are? Where do we find these rights? Thus kind of my point, how can the law infringe on or enforce rights, if we don't even know what they are. I know someone mentioned "Natural Rights", but how do you define those too? Where do they end? If there is no written "rights" other then those already defined, how do you define them? What makes it so i cannot make something up?

Of course. Make one up and plead your case, maybe you'll be successful at getting a law enacted to protect your made up right. It can happen. Lauren Southern is a man. That's her right. Sounds pretty made up to me. :)

Peoples idea of what their rights are is fluid. Usually as a society we come to some consensus on what constitutes a right, and codify them in law. It's not written in stone and we don't always get it right the first time. The Canadian charter of rights is a good example, someone decided those are our rights and wrote them down. Did anybody ask you if the list is correct or complete? Nobody asked me. So lets get it amended. The courts do that all the time. For example, the Supreme Court decided you have the right to not be offended. I see that as a made up right, yet there it is, in law. So let's get our right to defend ourselves codified.

RangeBob
03-05-2018, 12:20 AM
For example, the Supreme Court decided you have the right to not be offended. I see that as a made up right, yet there it is,

Do you mean the Whatcott case?

Speech capable of causing emotions that are negative but that fall short of full-fledged “abhorrence,” the Supreme Court dictated, cannot be banned. Another key detail is that truth is no defense: it is impermissible even to state demonstrable facts if, in the authorities' estimation, those facts might spark enmity toward a group. Yet another point worth mentioning is that any judgment rendered in such matters must, the Court posited, be arrived at in an “objective” manner.
-- February 28, 2013, Bill Whatcott, https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/179449/canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-free-speech-bruce-bawer
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do

IJ22
03-05-2018, 08:02 AM
Do you mean the Whatcott case?

Speech capable of causing emotions that are negative but that fall short of full-fledged “abhorrence,” the Supreme Court dictated, cannot be banned. Another key detail is that truth is no defense: it is impermissible even to state demonstrable facts if, in the authorities' estimation, those facts might spark enmity toward a group. Yet another point worth mentioning is that any judgment rendered in such matters must, the Court posited, be arrived at in an “objective” manner.
-- February 28, 2013, Bill Whatcott, https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/179449/canadian-supreme-court-kills-last-hope-free-speech-bruce-bawer
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do

I don't remember, I think it had something to do with the Human Rights Commission controversy. I'll see if I can find it. That might be it.

Stew
03-06-2018, 02:13 PM
laws, rights, not really relevant to me if you're trying to harm my family, I'm going to shoot you in the head, several times

it's a natural response to defend yourself and your family, that to me could define a natural right

shortandlong
03-06-2018, 06:25 PM
Actually, no we don't. We have no law that says this, anywhere.
We are not America.

Slavery was legal at one time as well , doesn’t make it right , btw where are your rights to breathe, and take sh!t in the morning written?