[ManifestDestiny]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

<yawn>
No it doesn't say it's useless -- far from it. You dally with that which you don't understand. At least we have the freedom to remove a primeminister we don't approve of...you're stuck with your president for 4 years no matter what.

How many times has congressional approval been bypassed by presidents I'm sure you worship? Your right to bear arms is not guaranteeing your freedom. I assure you the moment you and your armed mob start marching down the streets is the moment this foolishness will become apparent to you.

Hell you don't even have the right to a private phone call.....

You know nothing of History, You ever hear of Richard Nixon.

What makes you think you have the right to a private phone call?
Once again keep your fake freedom

[Mustang1]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Dont have to you do a good job of remiding all of us.

Yeah and you're Patrick Henry.

that you even know who Patrick Henry is tells me he did his job for leaving his mark on History, cant say that about many Canadians from Patrick Henry's time period. Cant say that about many Canadians period.

Brilliant...why not take you anti-Canadian drivel and go back to ignorance. Oh...and it's hard to name influential Canadians from the 1700s, when we weren't even a country! Want some influential fellow British from the same period?

[Mustang1]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Once again keep your fake freedom

It's not fake...it's for enlightened, civilized individuals. You wouldn't understand.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

You know nothing of History, You ever hear of Richard Nixon.

Ever hear of the Contra arms deal? Totally circumvented the best parts of your constitution.

$1:

What makes you think you have the right to a private phone call?

Patriot act.

$1:

Once again keep your fake freedom

Sorry but you're the one deluded. You can say that over and over again but you only illustrate you don't know what you're talking about. As I said, as soon as you use your 'right to bear arms' with a delinquent mob you'll quickly find out how fake your 'freedoms' are.

[Pseudonym]

Praxius Praxius:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

I am inclined to think that the media freakout about the first guy who got interviewed by Chris Matthews (riden linked the vid on page 2 of the thread) for carrying his sidearm got this rolling. If they were threatening Obama with their firearms, or were actually close enough to be a potential threat, then I might see a problem. Everything seems nice and peaceful though. Democracy in action, with police on hand to ask everyone to please keep their distances and make their points politely.

Fair points, but where was the guy who shot JFK?

I don't think he was at a protest, in the open, talking amiably with reporters, where the cops could peaceably monitor him.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I find it telling that ranting lefties who are outraged that people can cary guns, didn't know the firearm laws in Arizona or any of the other states but now presume to be qualified to preach about firearm education.

"A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost"
http://opencarry.org

I find it hypocritical that righties think they have a right to own a gun yet don't believe people have a right to ingest what they want or sell their bodies if they want.

A gun is a revokable privilege like a driving license.

[Pseudonym]

C'mon guys, we can politely discuss the motivations of these protestors without resorting to insulting one another's concepts of freedom. If that's all that's going to be happening here, we might as well call in a mod to lock it down.

[ManifestDestiny]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Brilliant...why not take you anti-Canadian drivel and go back to ignorance. Oh...and it's hard to name influential Canadians from the 1700s, when we weren't even a country! Want some influential fellow British from the same period?

Today you were not a country yet, tommorow when it come to burning down the white house, Canadians did it!

[Akhenaten]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

C'mon guys, we can politely discuss the motivations of these protestors without resorting to insulting one another's concepts of freedom. If that's all that's going to be happening here, we might as well call in a mod to lock it down.

Hear hear!

$1:

tommorow when it come to burning down the white house, Canadians did it!

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Brilliant...why not take you anti-Canadian drivel and go back to ignorance. Oh...and it's hard to name influential Canadians from the 1700s, when we weren't even a country! Want some influential fellow British from the same period?

Today you were not a country yet, tommorow when it come to burning down the white house, Canadians did it!

No. The British did it that was obvious. Why (some) Canadians would take pride in such a useless exercise is beyond me.

[DerbyX]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Brilliant...why not take you anti-Canadian drivel and go back to ignorance. Oh...and it's hard to name influential Canadians from the 1700s, when we weren't even a country! Want some influential fellow British from the same period?

Today you were not a country yet, tommorow when it come to burning down the white house, Canadians did it!

Actually M1 has corrected many people that it was the British army that did that. We were the guys that repelled you in upper Canada.

I'll also point out that you guys still call it "American history" prior to 1776 and claim all achievements done back then as "Amercian" as well.

[ManifestDestiny]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

C'mon guys, we can politely discuss the motivations of these protestors without resorting to insulting one another's concepts of freedom. If that's all that's going to be happening here, we might as well call in a mod to lock it down.

Agreed!

Truth of the matter is in the USA we have the right to bear arms. These people exercised their rights. They are not rednecks they are not black they are not white THEY ARE AMERICAN!

[Akhenaten]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

C'mon guys, we can politely discuss the motivations of these protestors without resorting to insulting one another's concepts of freedom. If that's all that's going to be happening here, we might as well call in a mod to lock it down.

Agreed!

Truth of the matter is in the USA we have the right to bear arms. These people exercised their rights. They are not rednecks they are not black they are not white THEY ARE AMERICAN!

I don't disagree with that Manifest, nor do I grudge the right to bear arms. Unfortunately that doesn't enter into the issue as much as many would like it to. You have the right to bear arms, right? Why? So you can overthrow a tyranical government, right? Ok sounds great, however are you really anywhere near that state? Some would have you believe 'yes', but deep down you know it's not true. You know you're not sinking into communisim and you know that a debate on the choice of health care or insurance companies is a FAR cry from any rational reason to start, insinuate or threaten an armed rebellion under the guise of 'exercising my rights'.

[BeaverFever]

you really think your small arms protect you against the state, with its vast military arsenal of tanks, helicopters, armoured vehicles and resources? Puh-lease! Ask the Branch Davidians down in Waco how long that worked out for them. It's an illusion.

And as we've all seen from the Patriot Act, it is much easier for YOUR government to indiscriminately spy on, arrest, torture, execute and hold secret trials (if they hold one at all)for absolutely anobody any time they feel like it, as long as they claim (without having to provide a shred of proof)that "national security" is at stake.

You live in a world where an illusion of "freedom" exists through superficial gestures like allowing the population to carry rinky-dink weapons where we live in a REAL democracy.

The "notwithstanding clause" is not implied and can not just be claimed by the gov't whenever convenient. In order to use it, the gov't must have a vote in parliament to enact the provision for a specific charter right,for a specific purpose and for a specific duration, not to exceed 5 years. A number of rights entrenched in the Charter are not subject to recourse to section 33 by Parliament or a legislature. These are democratic rights (sections 3-5 of the Charter), mobility rights (section 6), language rights (sections 16-22), minority language education rights (section 23), and the guaranteed equality of men and women (section 28). Also excluded from the section 33 override is section 24 (enforcement of the Charter).

So a gov't can not postpone or cancel elections, impose the clause indefinitely or use it as an excuse whenever convenient to justify some action. The powers are not implied, they must be expressly granted by parliament for a specific purpose. A gov't who enacts this legislation (it has never been used) still must face re-election by the local population as the clause can not be used to delay or interfere with democratic rights.

[ManifestDestiny]

"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."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia

[Pseudonym]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I find it hypocritical that righties think they have a right to own a gun yet don't believe people have a right to ingest what they want or sell their bodies if they want.

A gun is a revokable privilege like a driving license.

While I understand the parallel, I believe it does not exactly follow. I regard the right to bear arms as intrinsically bound to the right to life, which implies the right to self-defense. I have never really settled on a position with regards to certain drugs (where do you draw the line and why?), but prostitution, to me, is an immoral behavior which I shall not condone by legalization. It is somewhat tenuous position, but I don't really see those two things as being protected by a basic right in the same way as I see gun ownership.