Guns

[fredyellowone]

What does Canada do to folks that enter Canada ILLEGALLY?

Canada is doing a great job in that department. Without any wall, if I may add.

(if you can)

That document must be pretty mystic because according to people on this thread, only individuals that are loving guns can understand the United States constitution. No-one else.

Not really - while a great effort it really did little to restrict the power of the state in the end...

...

Now, that was funny.

 

[Zenith]

Canada is doing a great job in that department. Without any wall, if I may add.

Tell us more about Canada's proximity to Mexico!

That document must be pretty mystic because according to people on this thread, only individuals that are loving guns can understand the United States constitution. No-one else.

You know, except multitude of non American posters in this very thread that seen to have a firm grasp on it.

Now, that was funny.

Personally I thought the "Canada Rules, USA Drools because we don't have many Mexican immigrants" was more lulzworthy. Do you also have a masters in Geography by any chance?

 

[RC45]

Canada is doing a great job in that department. Without any wall, if I may add.

What does Canada do to folks that enter Canada ILLEGALLY?

As for the wall that shields Canada from the millions of illegals from South and Central America? - it is also more commonly called the USA.

That document must be pretty mystic because according to people on this thread, only individuals that are loving guns can understand the United States constitution. No-one else.

Have you even read it? That would be a start.

Read the preamble and the actual text of the US Constitution.

Now, that was funny.

Funny? No.

Factual? Yes.

The power of the monarchy and state was NOT restricted that much by the final versions of the Magana Carta as written into law.

In reality the individual had very few protections against the ultimate power of the state until quite recently.

 

[fredyellowone]

Have you even read it? That would be a start.
Read the preamble and the actual text of the US Constitution.

Exactly what I've just said. Only gun lovers know the US constitution. Everyone else have no idea of what they are talking about.

 

[RC45]

Exactly what I've just said.

Have you even read it?

I notice you seem to have a hard time answering questions.

What does Canada do to folks that enter Canada ILLEGALLY?

 

[LeMansAid]

Based on your response I am guessing this little show of 2nd Amendment freedoms will cause you to actually suffer heart failure... my daughter enjoying her Christmas present when she was **gasp** -- 12 years old.

Embrace the stereotype!! Further the "us and them"!!

From an onlooker's point of view, you come across as a liability rather than an asset to gun freedom. Due to attitude, not actions.

 

[RC45]

Embrace the stereotype!! Further the "us and them"!!

From an onlooker's point of view, you come across as liability rather than an asset to gun freedom. Due to attitude, not actions.

I do not need your or anyone elses 'blessing' to excercise my rights or enjoy the protections outlined by the US Constitution - in fact these inalienable rights are NOT afforded or granted by the Constitution, they are merely tabled for you to read.

They are inalienable rights. I am born therefore have these rights to liberty, protection, property ownership, self defense, practise of commerce etc.

This is not a popularity contest - the only stereotype is the one promoted by 'onlookers'.

The reality is that you are either an 'us' or you are a 'them'.

That is how freedom works - there is no compromise. That is how rights work - you either excercise them or lose them.

History is littered with peoples that failed to excercise their rights.

 

[LeMansAid]

The reality is that you are either an 'us' or you are a 'them'.

All up, it seems to generate quite a charged atmosphere. An atmosphere that encourages extreme views perhaps? And maybe one where indifference is easily mistaken for the opposite extreme, by either extreme?

The realities of life are there if you choose to see them. By the way, take a look at the Do You Believe In God thread and you might find these things called Atheists and Agnostics.

You're putting out the kind of tripe that gun proponents should be eagerly.... ahem.... shooting down.

 

[RC45]

The realities of life are there if you choose to see them. By the way, take a look at the Do You Believe In God thread and you might find these things called Atheists and Agnostics.

You're putting out the kind of tripe that gun proponents should be eagerly.... ahem.... shooting down.

I do not need your or anyone elses blessing to excercise my rights as a human being.

Period.

All I need to be is born. That is the nature of inalienable rights.

And what is this obsession with guns? Gun proponents?

It is simpler than 'being a gun proponant'. It is about either accpeting all the rights of the individual or not.

You are either in agreement of the text, intent and content of the Constitution as laid out by the founders or you are not.

The right to freedom of expression and practice of religion. The right to keep and bear arms. The right to property ownership. The right to a speedy trial. etc etc.

These are not extreme positions - but they are positions you either support or you do not.

The realities are that you either accept the individual is superior to the state and that the individual has specific and uncontested rights or you don't.

Rights not excercised are rights not maintained.

According to you encouraging a youth to have a healthy and practised respect for firearms is tripe?

According to you encouraging a youth to grow up demanding to be permitted to excercise her rights is tripe?

According to you a no-compromise view of individual rights is tripe?

 

[FoolKiller]

I bet you are the kind to be involved in those funky border patrols that are yelling at the illegal immigrants. To each their own, I guess.

Right back to stereotyping again? Nice.

Seriously, I didn't know they had prejudiced people in Canada, outside of South Park characters.

 

[LeMansAid]

According to you encouraging a youth to grow up demanding to be permitted to excercise her rights is tripe?

Due to attitude, not actions.

Your approach is laughable, and I won't be engaging any further. Feel free to claim victory if you so choose.

 

[RC45]

Your approach is laughable, and I won't be engaging any further. Feel free to claim victory if you so choose.

My approach is laughable?

No, my 'approach' was outlined in the 1770's when the text of the Constitution was penned.

I do not need your or anyone elses blessing to excercise rights - in fact if I where to wait for your or other peoples blessings then I would lose said rights.

I notice you don't state your location under your avatar? Let me hazard a guess? Australia? If not, it is probably some other liberal infested cesspool where to simply wake up and put your pants on you need PC approval.

 

[fredyellowone]

Right back to stereotyping again? Nice.

Seriously, I didn't know they had prejudiced people in Canada, outside of South Park characters.

Said the guy who accused me of taking my knowledge out of sensationalist medias because I have a different opinion than him.

It is probably some other liberal infested cesspool where to simply wake up and put your pants on you need PC approval.

Like what? England? France? Canada? Sweden? Norway? Iceland? Denmark? Finland? Germany? Japan? Luxembourg? Portugal? New Zealand? Singapore? Poland?

BTW, you may want to read about fundamental rights in the future. You are clearly confused about them versus the rights granted by the US Constitution. Also take a look at the Constitution from Germany, and the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen from France, as well as the UN point of view, and you may learn a thing or two about the substantive rights, and the conflicted topics that are NOT universal; like yes, the right to bear arms, and the rights of the future generations.

You may also try to take a look on the letters between John Rawls and Robert Nozick, it would really help you.

And If you got further time : John Locke and Toqueville on the right to revolt.

Till then, Farewell.

 

[RC45]

Like what? England? France? Canada? Sweden? Norway? Island? Denmark? Finland? Germany? Japan? Luxembourg? Portugal? New Zealand? Singapore? Poland?

I am sure you mean Ireland. As for the rest, all places I chose not to immigrate to - they have nothing to offer the person that is looking to vacate a socialist cesspool.

 

[fredyellowone]

I am sure you mean Ireland. As for the rest, all places I chose not to immigrate to - they have nothing to offer the person that is looking to vacate a socialist cesspool.

Iceland, my bad.

 

[Swagger897]

What does Canada do to folks that enter Canada ILLEGALLY?

Canada is doing a great job in that department. Without any wall, if I may add.

Wow..... There you go again, skipping over the entire question, not even providing simple facts that can be looked up easily...

 

[RC45]

Like what? England? France? Canada? Sweden? Norway? Iceland? Denmark? Finland? Germany? Japan? Luxembourg? Portugal? New Zealand? Singapore? Poland?

BTW, you may want to read about fundamental rights in the future. You are clearly confused about them versus the rights granted by the US Constitution. Also take a look at the Constitution from Germany, and the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen from France, as well as the UN point of view, and you may learn a thing or two about the substantive rights, and the conflicted topics that are NOT universal; like yes, the right to bear arms, and the rights of the future generations.

You may also try to take a look on the letters between John Rawls and Robert Nozick, it would really help you.

And If you got further time : John Locke and Toqueville on the right to revolt.

Till then, Farewell.

No - you are confused. The US Constitution grants no rights. It recognises that the rights are natural and inalienable and that the Constitution simply enumerates them for folks such as yourself to understand.

That is the flaw of every other constitutional document - if a document and man grant you rights then man can revoke those rights.

Why are you so afraid of the individual being superior to the state?

Better yet, why is the UN afraid of the individual being superior to the state?

As for further reading, I did all that decades ago while still a rose-glassed student - then I grew up and understood that there was already a country that had been founded by folks that had already addressed all the issues at hand.

I note you and others fail to point out where the US was flawed in its founding - well you can't - the United States fostered into the being the strongest, wealthiest and most stable political model of all time - all based on the individual being superior to the state.

 

[Swagger897]

Well... Aside all the issues for the previous ten or so pages....


Did anyone (from the states or whoever gets ABC) watch the 20/20 edition about young guns? Pretty interesting. However, they could've substituted the story for food/candy and related it to obesity. The guns I think only made people stay to watch the whole thing.

I was just a bit mad when they started trashing the bolt action .22's for being pink and the multi-fiber colored stocks for looking similar to toys. Like the company said (I think frogged or something) they have the authority to do so, and it doesn't matter/shouldn't matter to a 9 year old because only adults may purchase the guns. That last sentence really spoke for the whole 15 minute segment but ABC dragged out a kid which is what made the audience dig I to the story..

 

[Beeker1972]

Trying to explain Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness(Property) to someone who isn't from the United States is like trying to explain emotions to Vulcans. Just does not compute. The rights of men, or the rights of Man can't have both. One is the rights of the individual person the other is the rights of a group. Where does human rights come from people or deities? If people gives human right then people can take away human rights. If deities like Jehovah/Allah give human rights, then people can never take away human rights. The right of self protection should never be compromised by anyone, or group period. It protects individuals' human rights against tyranny that is why the United States will never fall from an outside invading force it will be conquered from the inside by people who hate the very idea of the human rights of the individual person.

 

[FoolKiller]

Said the guy who accused me of taking my knowledge out of sensationalist medias because I have a different opinion than him.

Bigoted stereotype (not your first in this thread) vs pointing out that you sound like your information came from a source other than experience.

Maybe if you hadn't gone on a large rant that sounded like sensationalist media instead of actual facts.

Trying to explain Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness(Property) to someone who isn't from the United States is like trying to explain emotions to Vulcans.

Let's stop this too. I can't call out Fred without calling this out. Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe, and many other places have many of the same liberties we do. To be honest, in some aspects the US hasn't been perfect since day one. Sure, some don't allow private gun ownership, free speech, or have a more socialist economy structure, but if you didn't own a gun and lived in some places you would never notice a difference.

Let's all just focus on guns and not attack entire cultures. There are people on this board from many other countries who do understand and support the US' relatively relaxed version of things.

 

[fredyellowone]

No - you are confused. The US Constitution grants no rights. It recognises that the rights are natural and inalienable and that the Constitution simply enumerates them for folks such as yourself to understand.

And who decided that some rights had to be fundamental, natural and inalienable; while others been left out? Why some rights that the US is not recognizing are by different countries?

Right now, Franklin Roosevelt would be laughing at you.

The United States fostered into the being the strongest, wealthiest and most stable political model of all time.

Strongest? Well, of course. You guys are spending more in the military than China, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Spain, Canada combined. BTW, you could help some poor people with all that cash.

Most stable? Good one, but no. The reason why the United States are mostly a stable country is because of the two- party system. And that two-party system is also responsible for that struggling democracy. Ever heard of representative democracy? You know, that thing coming from Greece? And by the way, I'm not sure I would call a country "stable" when they had a civil war killing countless of souls.

By The Way, The United States also forstered into being

One of the most violent Occidental country (The most, actually)
A country ranked last for it's educational system (Amongst G-8)
A country where only the upper class can afford a decent lifestyle
A country plagued with income inequality (In that regard however, United Kingdom is leading.)
A country with very paranoid people hated all around the world

That being said, I'm done with you. You are so clueless that's not even funny. And I will stop at that, because right now; because of your blindless devotion, I'm sounding like an idiot who is attacking the whole United States culture.

I don't want to do that, I don't want to sound like that,

So I'm done.

My apologies in advance.

 

[BobK]

And who decided that some rights had to be fundamental, natural and inalienable; while others been left out? Why some rights that the US is not recognizing are by different countries?

Right now, Franklin Roosevelt would be laughing at you.

You know, you really should become familiar with the Human Rights thread. It goes into which rights are "fundamental, natural and inalienable" and which aren't, and why. Perhaps you may even have something new to bring to that discussion.

 

[RC45]

And who decided that some rights had to be fundamental, natural and inalienable; while others been left out? Why some rights that the US is not recognizing are by different countries?

Right now, Franklin Roosevelt would be laughing at you.



Strongest? Well, of course. You guys are spending more in the military than China, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Spain, Canada combined. BTW, you could help some poor people with all that cash.

Most stable? Good one, but no. The reason why the United States are mostly a stable country is because of the two- party system. And that two-party system is also responsible for that struggling democracy. Ever heard of representative democracy? You know, that thing coming from Greece? And by the way, I'm not sure I would call a country "stable" when they had a civil war killing countless of souls.

An aweful lotof words without making an actual point.

By The Way, The United States also forstered into being

One of the most violent Occidental country (The most, actually)

There you go somehow forgetting actual facts.

Considering Mexico is really a giant Spanish colony, and rather Occidental bacause of this fact - it is far more violent than the USA. But as usual you don't state facts, you merely spout emotion.

A country ranked last for it's educational system (Amongst G-8)

Only since the liberal socilaist have been running the education system in the USA.

A country where only the upper class can afford a decent lifestyle

Another falsehood.

Int he USA the reason why the poorest folks are the fattest is because they have everything they need given to them by the liberal socialists in government.

How is it that poor people are fat? It would seem they are not poor then.

They have TV's, cars, drugs, housing, medicine - now you want to see really poor people - take atrip to Africa sometime.

A country plagued with income inequality (In that regard however, United Kingdom is leading.)

? Say what? Another very ignorant statement.

Name the countries that do NOT have rich and poor?

Please - name just 1.

A country with very paranoid people hated all around the world

Yet these same people who hate the USA demand the USA send them food, weapons, ,medicine and pay for the UN head quarters etc.

That being said, I'm done with you. You are so clueless that's not even funny. And I will stop at that, because right now; because of your blindless devotion, I'm sounding like an idiot who is attacking the whole United States culture.

Done with me?

You still have not told us what Canada does with people that enter the country illegally.

All you have done is spout untruths, falsehoods and emotion.

I don't want to do that, I don't want to sound like that,

So I'm done.

My apologies in advance.

I have to ask, are you a very young adult?

 

[Badasp5.0]

One of the most violent Occidental country (The most, actually)
A country ranked last for it's educational system (Amongst G-8)
A country where only the upper class can afford a decent lifestyle
A country plagued with income inequality (In that regard however, United Kingdom is leading.)
A country with very paranoid people hated all around the world

.

How long has you lived in the US in the middle and lower class? I grew up poor(raised by a single mom) in a very poor neighborhood in the state with THE LOWEST per capita income in the US and I had a VERY decent comfortable lifestyle. A lot better than my extended family in Cuba and Mexico. Just out of curiosity how old are you and have to traveled to the US or the rest of the world?

 

[Zenith]

Generic USA whining.

Do all Canadian Masters of Political Science have the angsty resentment towards the US like you do or do the rest of them go play some hockey in toques to relieve some of the stress? If that doesn't work, I would guess some Tim Horton's would help. Be sure to work off the calories or the tax payers will have to pick up your bypass operation, eh?

As soon as you brought in the classic military spending complaint I knew for certain that you lack an understanding of international politics, much lower than that of anyone who has had a cursory study into late 20th century politics. Either way, at the rate that you're choosing to ignore people who prove your points wrong, you'll be ignoring 70% of the OCE forum.

Here's a good lesson I've learned: Listen to people who know more than you. That way there will be less of them.

 

[Joel]

Do all Canadian Masters of Political Science have the angsty resentment towards the US like you do or do the rest of them go play some hockey in toques to relieve some of the stress? If that doesn't work, I would guess some Tim Horton's would help. Be sure to work off the calories or the tax payers will have to pick up your bypass operation, eh?

It's not resentment. It's an inferiority complex.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Well 2 is a bit you...

Oh, sarcasm. Because that's original and witty.

What's more interesting is that this a person who hates guns thinks that we're idiots for owning, wanting to own and use legally, and expanding our ownership. However, this user knows names of weapons that most average gun owners that I've ever talked to don't know or wouldn't know.

I guess we should take pride in the fact that they are using the proper search engines to look up say "powerful guns", and then post said guns in their text to sound knowledgeable while still ironically hating guns.

Not only this but the same user then claims that they are being made fun of or called names, when that hasn't been completely true. Rather the sarcasm or retorts that did happen only did so due to the hyperbole given in the first place by that user, as well as (how quickly one forgets), that they came into the thread knowing that there'd be a side that supports guns and/or ownership yet decided to crash in (while not reading the thread) and call those people names. So in hindsight @fredyellowone you want to cry foul at various corners when you all perpetuated actions before anyone did the same to you.

The double standard is astounding, not to count the fact that for someone who obtained a Masters degree they sure don't convey the type of attitude and rational, someone who actually has said scholar achievement would. But then that is a subjective idea I have so it doesn't matter in the end.

 

[Beeker1972]

Arizonians who do they think they are! They live in a state that is just sand, and cactus everywhere! You don't even need a stove top to fry your morning eggs for breakfast in the morning just find the nearest rock!

 

[Swagger897]

Arizonians who do they think they are! They live in a state that is just sand, and cactus everywhere! You don't even need a stove top to fry your morning eggs for breakfast in the morning just find the nearest rock!

Looks like a tree (a lot) to me...

 

[BobK]

Arizonians who do they think they are! They live in a state that is just sand, and cactus everywhere! You don't even need a stove top to fry your morning eggs for breakfast in the morning just find the nearest rock!

...and with that you've destroyed what little credibility (if any) you may have had.


Cue the "just kidding/joking" response...