Printable View
The media beat you to it (sorta) Rugger. From 2 days ago
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...service=mobile
shame there's no stats for how many chidldren are mauled, disfigured for life, as there are how many are accidentally shot.
Accordig to the article 500,000 bites, 75% of which are children under 10 (or roughly 400,000). Somehow I don't think even 500 kids are wounded and in need of stitches or plastic surgery by stray shots each year....
lol
;)<./wink
ROFLMAO! Now,that's funny,right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
Pretty good comparison Rugger. However our rights to guns are a little different.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and those inalienable rights were codified in the 10 amendments to the US Constitution, the US was wedded into the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from a God given humanity. This was recognized by the SCOTUS as a FUNDAMENTAL personal right, not a gift of our government in DC v Heller. It held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental personal right and NOT a gift from government.
A Fundamental personal right is the self evident natural ability of individuals to make choices WITHOUT government PERMISSION.
The only way government can interfere with that is if it can demonstrate a COMPELLING governmental interest that is also the LEAST restrictive means AND ONLY WITH DUE PROCESS.
As Americans, we dont NEED to defend the law nor show a compelling need to bear arms; the government must show a compelling need to prevent us from doing so. It's called BLACK LETTER LAW, meaning it's VERY WELL accepted and established throughout the land.
Funny, this past week the liberal, socialist and communist liberal democrats sought to tie the 2nd amendment right to arms to a No Fly list/Watch list, preventing any on that list from buying a gun. YET NOT A SINGLE SENATOR COULD STATE THE CRITERIA FOR PUTTING A NAME ON THAT LIST AND NONE COULD IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE OR PEOPLES WHO PREPARE THAT LIST.
That's because these are well guarded secret lists. If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret, well guarded list on the bureaucrat's own whim, YOU have lost a FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY and RIGHT and now the government has turned a fundamental right/liberty into a government GIFT.
One idiot of a Senator even stated "due process" is killing us. Due process is spelled out in the Constitution. Due process is the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to FORCE any and all violations to be PROVED by the government to a jury of our peers before the government can take LIFE, LIBERTY or PROPERTY.
It is the essence of the RIGHTS of FREE people.
Gun control, as one can see, is ONLY about Control of a FREE People. Their real agenda of CONTROL and Government dependence is becoming more and more obvious as their demands become less and less about substance.
I'm not clear on how absolutist arguments concerning the US constitution apply to the reclassification of the AR-15 in Canada.
I am and they don't,IMO. There's a tremendous difference between laws and philosophies of a social democracy-constitutional monarchy (Canada) and a republic (US). In a republic,laws govern the state. Individuals are on their own to live their lives by whatever means they deem appropriate and legal with all rights to the individual. In our system,all authority lies with The Crown that bestows certain rights to the individual as "privileges" which can be withdrawn on a whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
There a few steps that have to be taken before that 'whim', ever comes to fruition.
"Democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive definitions. The US is both a liberal democracy and a constitutional republic. Canada is both a liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Canada and the US share a common law background, both have bills of rights, and both operate under the constitutional principle that the state is bound by laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The Crown cannot withdraw rights on a whim.
Times change and so should the laws that govern a nations citizens. I do not believe those very smart men of three hundred years ago were able to see the future. You make laws that are the best for your citizens living NOW.
While this mostly makes sense, those men 300 years ago enshrined the "right" to bear arms. A right is different from a law. Laws are often written to protect rights but don't confuse the two. Much more significant to revise the rights of your citizens than change laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I may be mistaken, but before it was changed , was it not a 'right' to own another human being? And even if I am wrong about the first statement, why for the good of all, cannot 'rights' change over time? ie. jus primae noctis, known as Law of the first night or Lord's right.