Self-Defense is Not "Good Cause" for Legally Packin'

[boxcar]

Get ready to kiss your guns good-bye. It won't be long now...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-no-carry-concealed-weapons-public-175139817.html

[Parkview_Pirate]

"This is a significant victory for public safety and for local jurisdictions that apply sensible policies to protect the public," said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat.

Hah. "Sensible" apparently means creating gun-free zones where citizens become sitting ducks. "Sensible" apparently means that .GOV can define what is allowed, which in this case means that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is ignored.

Odd, I don't recall lately in which a person with a concealed carry permit went on a rampage. This is simply a "feel good" band-aid for the libs.

Should be a prominent issue in the election, though by November the economy will be front and center. Trump should be able to score points against Hillary, as her only suggestion to this point is that the failure of gun control laws requires more gun control laws. Until the lefties embrace the idea of changing mental health laws and securing the borders effectively, gun violence will continue to occur now and then. And with fewer "good guys with guns", the only logical outcome will be more carnage - not less.

[horses4courses]

Get ready to kiss your guns good-bye. It won't be long now...

Amen to that, reverend :ThmbUp:

You must have taken a puff too many today, though. :cool:

[Rookies]

And with fewer "good guys with guns", the only logical outcome will be more carnage - not less.

I've previously mentioned that there was likely one gun per American citizen. Let's downgrade the numbers to 250 Million guns and use 75 Million as those who own them.

Let's say there are only :rolleyes: 1% who are "bad guys".

That means 750k roaming around, like the Wild West. And just what small personal slight, will change another 10 Million away from the "good guys" :bang: ?

Funny, I have lived in the same home, in the same neighbourhood, for 35 years. NOBODY, not one single person, has ever packed a gun, when walking his/her dig, kid or spouse.

NEVER!
And, nobody has ever mentioned owning one.
And, nobody has ever been shot, let alone murdered.

In this city of 3 million as a whole, we have averaged < than 50 murders per year over the past decade, split about 50% via the gun.

That is normalcy of everyday life- not people believing Armageddon is arriving over the next curve in the road- at anytime.

You are right about one thing. Carnage will continue in America with the insane number of guns in people's possession.

[Clocker]

Get ready to kiss your guns good-bye. It won't be long now...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-no-carry-concealed-weapons-public-175139817.html

This has been an issue that varies from state to state, and will no doubt end up in SCOTUS.

The issue is "shall issue" versus "may issue". Concealed carry permits are generally issued by the local authorities, usually the sheriff, under standards defined by state law.

In a "shall issue" state, the sheriff must issue a carry permit to any citizen that meets the criteria (generally a clean criminal and mental health record) spelled out in the state law. The sheriff has no discretion. In a "may issue" state, the sheriff has sole discretion as to whether or not to issue a carry permit on a case by case basis. Naturally, moonbat jurisdictions like California and D.C. are "may issue".

Strangely, a federal judge in D.C. recently ruled that the local police requirement that citizens needed a "good reason" to get a permit was probably unconstitutional. That one will no doubt go to SCOTUS as all the libs in D.C. get their panties in a wad.

It is unlikely that any SCOTUS decision would impact those in "shall issue" states, but they could uphold the rights of "may issue" states to generally restrict carry permits to the rich and powerful, as is currently the case.

From Wiki, some optimistic evidence of rationality in this country:

The following are shall-issue states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

[Clocker]

Funny, I have lived in the same home, in the same neighbourhood, for 35 years. NOBODY, not one single person, has ever packed a gun, when walking his/her dig, kid or spouse.

NEVER!
And, nobody has ever mentioned owning one.

How do you know that no one has a gun, if no one has ever talked about it?

I certainly wouldn't talk about it if you were my neighbor! :cool:

[Parkview_Pirate]

I've previously mentioned that there was likely one gun per American citizen. Let's downgrade the numbers to 250 Million guns and use 75 Million as those who own them.

Let's say there are only :rolleyes: 1% who are "bad guys".

Actually, I think there are 150 million households in the U.S. that have at least one firearm.

That means 750k roaming around, like the Wild West. And just what small personal slight, will change another 10 Million away from the "good guys" :bang: ?

It's most likely there are far more than 750K violent criminals in the U.S. As for a "personal slight" causing one to go ballistic and become homicidal, we apparently agree that mental health laws need to be addressed to deal with the problem. And, you should recall that people were more polite back in the Wild West. :D

Funny, I have lived in the same home, in the same neighbourhood, for 35 years. NOBODY, not one single person, has ever packed a gun, when walking his/her dig, kid or spouse.

NEVER!
And, nobody has ever mentioned owning one.
And, nobody has ever been shot, let alone murdered.

Funny, I've lived in 10 different states and not always in the best neighborhoods, and I've seen plenty of violence. A guy in the house behind me was knifed to death one night when I lived in Kentucky. As pleasant as your personal experience has been, the demographics of your neighborhood in Toronto hardly translate to the entire United States. Your point is irrelevant. We might also mention the significant restrictions around firearms in Canada, which essentially has much of the country a gun-free shooting gallery for the next mass shooting. Which, as we all know, Canada has experienced.

In this city of 3 million as a whole, we have averaged < than 50 murders per year over the past decade, split about 50% via the gun.

Bully for you. Not all of us live in Toronto. With burglaries and home invasions on the rise in the U.S., it seems some "sensible" precautions are in order. Some people opt for a dog, a baseball bat, or pepper spray. I prefer to be on equal footing with the "bad guy", which provides me with more options.

That is normalcy of everyday life- not people believing Armageddon is arriving over the next curve in the road- at anytime.

Stay tuned. The world is changing, as it always has, and I doubt your little piece of paradise will remain so pleasant. Seems there's quite a bit of crime right now in Toronto - I count six shootings, a mugging and a stabbing - and the pace for gun deaths the highest in 10 years.....

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime.html

You are right about one thing. Carnage will continue in America with the insane number of guns in people's possession.

So your solution is to remove guns from the possession of law abiding people. Check. In case you haven't noticed, gun control laws have little effect on criminal behavior.....

[Rookies]

How do you know that no one has a gun, if no one has ever talked about it?

I certainly wouldn't talk about it if you were my neighbor! :cool:

Uhhhh... let me reiterate about being here 35 years. I get to know most of my neighbours, certainly the immediate ones- real well. Plus, there have been numerous discussions about gun possession- in America, of course negative.

But you are correct about the last point. I would sure as F, want to know why my neighbour had a handgun, if he wasn't a copper, etc.

[Clocker]

As for a "personal slight" causing one to go ballistic and become homicidal, we apparently agree that mental health laws need to be addressed to deal with the problem. And, you should recall that people were more polite back in the Wild West. :D

My general experience shows that it is liberals who strongly fight against the use of mental health information as part of background checks for gun purchases and licenses, even though such information is anonymous as to the specifics.

After a number of training programs for general firearm usage, self-defense, and concealed carry, I can say that people who take and provide such training are fanatical about safety. As a rule, people with concealed carry permits are much more aware and sensitive about staying out of trouble, staying out of arguments, and avoiding personal conflict, to the point of fanaticism on the subject.

"An armed society is a polite society." -- Robert Heinlein.

[Clocker]

Plus, there have been numerous discussions about gun possession- in America, of course negative.



Of course. Because, understandably, you haven't a clue about the culture of legal and responsible gun ownership in America. Ignorance isn't a personal defect, it is simply a lack of knowledge. And I must conclude that you, and most Canadians, and most of my liberal countrymen, are ignorant about guns and responsible gun owners.

A dirty little secret about America is that a very high percentage of gun violence in this country can be traced to the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws. And a primary reason for that is political correctness and liberal reluctance to adhere to the strict letter of the law, all the while calling for more gun control laws.

[Rookies]

Of course. Because, understandably, you haven't a clue about the culture of legal and responsible gun ownership in America. Ignorance isn't a personal defect, it is simply a lack of knowledge. And I must conclude that you, and most Canadians, and most of my liberal countrymen, are ignorant about guns and responsible gun owners.

A dirty little secret about America is that a very high percentage of gun violence in this country can be traced to the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws. And a primary reason for that is political correctness and liberal reluctance to adhere to the strict letter of the law, all the while calling for more gun control laws.

I don't have a problem with legal gun owners in certain contexts- law enforcement, hunting, etc.

But obviously we live in dual realities. Even by your posts and the thread starter, much of your society is in your own words, dangerous and uncontrollable. Thus, the necessity for arming oneself. That is simply not the reality of everyday life, in most modern democracies- particularly mine.

The entire ethos is 180 degrees different, notwithstanding that every society has crime. But most of us, aren't looking under the bed or out the window to spot the daily masked intruder- because we have a hit by lightning chance of him being there- in our obviously peaceful, ordered societies.

[Clocker]

in our obviously peaceful, ordered societies.

Most of us would rather not live in such an ordered society, preferring liberty to government imposed security. That is why we got rid of our monarch hundreds of years ago. You remain subject to yours. That's your choice. But don't presume to talk down to us with your morally superior attitude.

We already have enough nagging from our own liberals who think that the majority of Americans are too stupid to know what is good for them, all evidence to the contrary.

[OntheRail]

Uhhhh... let me reiterate about being here 35 years. I get to know most of my neighbours, certainly the immediate ones- real well. Plus, there have been numerous discussions about gun possession- in America, of course negative.

But you are correct about the last point. I would sure as F, want to know why my neighbour had a handgun, if he wasn't a copper, etc.
Well aren't you the busy little Gladys Kravitz... I bet you snoop thru their medicine cabinet to. :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Most of us would rather not live in such an ordered society, preferring liberty to government imposed security. That is why we got rid of our monarch hundreds of years ago. You remain subject to yours. That's your choice. But don't presume to talk down to us with your morally superior attitude.

We already have enough nagging from our own liberals who think that the majority of Americans are too stupid to know what is good for them, all evidence to the contrary.

As someone that has no use for guns, I very much approve this message. If only more Americans that don't give a shit about surrendering liberty unless it is their own would move to Canada and live peacefully with Rookies and get the hell out of my hair. I bet there are four times as many weapons in my neighbor's homes as there are living creatures and yet the crime rate is non-existent, the people packing heat in the grocery are a whole lot friendlier than the public in other "civilized" places that I've lived like New York and Massachusetts. God it is tiresome hearing it from Americans, at least Canadians are just a universally non-violent sort. I mean look at the national pasttime. :lol:

[tucker6]

Actually, I think there are 150 million households in the U.S. that have at least one firearm.

Considering that the USA only had a total of 134 million households in 2014, that's a good trick.

[boxcar]

Amen to that, reverend :ThmbUp:

You must have taken a puff too many today, though. :cool:

Haven't you heard: All good socialist countries eventually outlaw guns? Try to keep up with what is going on in the world.

[boxcar]

This has been an issue that varies from state to state, and will no doubt end up in SCOTUS.

The issue is "shall issue" versus "may issue". Concealed carry permits are generally issued by the local authorities, usually the sheriff, under standards defined by state law.

In a "shall issue" state, the sheriff must issue a carry permit to any citizen that meets the criteria (generally a clean criminal and mental health record) spelled out in the state law. The sheriff has no discretion. In a "may issue" state, the sheriff has sole discretion as to whether or not to issue a carry permit on a case by case basis. Naturally, moonbat jurisdictions like California and D.C. are "may issue".

Strangely, a federal judge in D.C. recently ruled that the local police requirement that citizens needed a "good reason" to get a permit was probably unconstitutional. That one will no doubt go to SCOTUS as all the libs in D.C. get their panties in a wad.

It is unlikely that any SCOTUS decision would impact those in "shall issue" states, but they could uphold the rights of "may issue" states to generally restrict carry permits to the rich and powerful, as is currently the case.

From Wiki, some optimistic evidence of rationality in this country:

Good post, Clock! But remember: The SC is but one liberal jurist away from becoming a full-blown judicial tyranny institution. A handful of unelected officials will soon be making policy for this country whenever a coveted political policy gets bogged down for one reason or another in the other two "co-equal" branches. And besides, the SC already has a good record of subverting states' rights in favor or Federalism.

[boxcar]

But you are correct about the last point. I would sure as F, want to know why my neighbour had a handgun, if he wasn't a copper, etc.

Talk about a nosy neighbor! :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Well aren't you the busy little Gladys Kravitz... I bet you snoop thru their medicine cabinet to. :rolleyes:

Neighbors like him are why we need guns.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Considering that the USA only had a total of 134 million households in 2014, that's a good trick.

Wishful thinking on my part - we should be more like Switzerland when it comes to firearms in each home.

Actually, I think I confused the number of households with guns versus the percentage of households with guns - it's around 50%, which would translate to roughly 150 million people being in a house with a gun.

[Clocker]

Good post, Clock! But remember: The SC is but one liberal jurist away from becoming a full-blown judicial tyranny institution. A handful of unelected officials will soon be making policy for this country whenever a coveted political policy gets bogged down for one reason or another in the other two "co-equal" branches. And besides, the SC already has a good record of subverting states' rights in favor or Federalism.

The legal issue under discussion is whether or not a state "may issue" law is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. As far as I know, there are no challenges to the ability of a state to have a "shall issue" law.

Therefore the worst case scenario should be that "may issue" laws are found to be constitutional, and that those states, and D.C., that have such laws can continue to deny carry permits at their whim.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I don't have a problem with legal gun owners in certain contexts- law enforcement, hunting, etc.

But obviously we live in dual realities. Even by your posts and the thread starter, much of your society is in your own words, dangerous and uncontrollable. Thus, the necessity for arming oneself. That is simply not the reality of everyday life, in most modern democracies- particularly mine.

The entire ethos is 180 degrees different, notwithstanding that every society has crime. But most of us, aren't looking under the bed or out the window to spot the daily masked intruder- because we have a hit by lightning chance of him being there- in our obviously peaceful, ordered societies.

The crime page of the Toronto Star seems to contradict your statement. I'm sure there are plenty of folks near you with security systems, neighborhood watch programs, and <gasp!> an occasional loaded shotgun or rifle for protection. The U.S. is not nearly as bad as some other countries, including democracies on Central and South America along with the poster child of violent places to live, South Africa. The dual realities you mention are more related to the response of a potential threat, and not so much a great difference in the threats themselves.

You choose to be an ostrich dependent on the Mounties to ride in to the rescue, while some of us prefer having an option to address the problem ourselves - if necessary.

[Rookies]

Talk about a nosy neighbor! :rolleyes:

Uhh... I'm not up on Deliverance Mountain, like yourself, Boxie. This is a big city and peeps here aren't all Kitty Genovese! You need to keep your neighbours close and your immediate neighbours- closer. It builds bonds and friendships for common ventures, parties & gatherings.

OR...
you can sit back in your bell tower, lining up your scope, for the upcoming intruder! :rolleyes:

[Rookies]

The crime page of the Toronto Star seems to contradict your statement. I'm sure there are plenty of folks near you with security systems, neighborhood watch programs, and <gasp!> an occasional loaded shotgun or rifle for protection. The U.S. is not nearly as bad as some other countries, including democracies on Central and South America along with the poster child of violent places to live, South Africa. The dual realities you mention are more related to the response of a potential threat, and not so much a great difference in the threats themselves.

You choose to be an ostrich dependent on the Mounties to ride in to the rescue, while some of us prefer having an option to address the problem ourselves - if necessary.

It's true there has been a recent spike. One was a targeted gang banger from another city. But, you have no doubt reviewed the decade old crime data and found that this is the safest large city in North America- by far! Yeah, some people have intruder systems and Neighbourhood Watch programs- but the vast majority are unofficial.

They get to know and trust their neighbours. Many Americans believe that they MUST defend themselves, because of the environment they live in. And that environment exists in part, because they know virtually everyone else is armed to the teeth.

I don't have that as my slightest concern, as guns are in short supply. Of course, I am awaiting the increases in technology and border enforcement law, where EVERY vehicle, coming from the U.S. is scanned for weapons, prior to admission. America, is by far, the largest supplier of illegal weapons in Canada.

[Clocker]

America, is by far, the largest supplier of illegal weapons in Canada.

Just returning the favor for your supplying whiskey to the US during Prohibition. Free men are capable of making their own choices about guns and liquor. :cool:

[JustRalph]

It will still be up to the states. If you think Texas is going to take our guns.....you're wrong.

Rookies, one difference in Canada. Your population is 2% black.

Remove the large black urban areas in the U.S. And gun crimes would be a footnote

[Clocker]

Remove the large black Democratic urban areas in the U.S. And gun crimes would be a footnote

Fixed for accuracy.

Another cultural difference is that 60% of gun deaths in America are suicides. Hardly the Wild West image some uninformed outsiders try to impose on us.

[Rookies]

It will still be up to the states. If you think Texas is going to take our guns.....you're wrong.

Rookies, one difference in Canada. Your population is 2% black.

Remove the large black urban areas in the U.S. And gun crimes would be a footnote

I've said this before Ralph (& btw, welcome back!), but maybe you've missed it in your absence- Toronto has now a neck and neck visible majority population. Plus, virtually 50% again are foreign born. The top 4-5 non white demographics are South Asian (12%), Chinese (11%), Black (8%), Filipino (4%) and Arab/ Latin American (3% each).

My own interp of why TO works, is that NOBODY has the hammer as an individual race. Plus, people work here- well the vast majority do and interact with each other daily everywhere in every institution, schools, community centres, parks, pools, biz, etc. Finally, there is an ocean of ca$h flowing here, where people from around the planet are looking for an investment investment haven.

e.g. I live in what would be considered a lower middle class neighbourhood of the old city. A modest, detached 3 bedroom house, with a modest wooden garage sells for $900k! The Real Estate Market has rolled on for 35 years now, without interruption. That too, can account for the lesser crime, because the older generations have done fine in life.

As for the American Black issue? Indeed, for all manner of historical reasons, demographic and living patterns, it is America's Achilles heel. Were it resolved at America's inception, instead of the 60% solution, or anytime in the next 200 years, I believe things would be fine- as they are here.

But, that didn't happen and all manner of bad values, related to society, work, education & housing have been bred generation over generation.

Sad, very sad.

[Tom]

Blame the democrats for the race problems we have here.
And I would still rather be here and free than anywhere else.
We had a Civil War over race, but that still beats living under the Faux Royal family for generations.

[boxcar]

Uhh... I'm not up on Deliverance Mountain, like yourself, Boxie. This is a big city and peeps here aren't all Kitty Genovese! You need to keep your neighbours close and your immediate neighbours- closer. It builds bonds and friendships for common ventures, parties & gatherings.

OR...
you can sit back in your bell tower, lining up your scope, for the upcoming intruder! :rolleyes:

Yeah...just how close do you keep your neighbors...and their wives? :rolleyes:

One thing I love about friends: I get to pick 'em, and that includes those I live around! And I have discriminating tastes, plus I relish my own privacy. There's a lot to be said for "Deliverance Mountain"!

[delayjf]

Funny, I have lived in the same home, in the same neighbourhood, for 35 years. NOBODY, not one single person, has ever packed a gun, when walking his/her dig, kid or spouse.

Try walking your dog in the southside of Chicago. I hope your dog is a bullet proof pit bull.

[delayjf]

Wishful thinking on my part - we should be more like Switzerland when it comes to firearms in each home.


Not just firearms, but fully automatic weapons

I like the way you think.

[delayjf]

WELCOME BACK RALPH

It will still be up to the states. If you think Texas is going to take our guns.....you're wrong.

Rookies, one difference in Canada. Your population is 2% black.

Remove the large black urban areas in the U.S. And gun crimes would be a footnote

Agree 100% - but can you imagine if Donald Trump had said that.

[TJDave]

If I decide to carry a concealed weapon the least of my concerns would be a permit. The less people know, the better.

[boxcar]

I've said this before Ralph (& btw, welcome back!), but maybe you've missed it in your absence- Toronto has now a neck and neck visible majority population. Plus, virtually 50% again are foreign born. The top 4-5 non white demographics are South Asian (12%), Chinese (11%), Black (8%), Filipino (4%) and Arab/ Latin American (3% each).

My own interp of why TO works, is that NOBODY has the hammer as an individual race. Plus, people work here- well the vast majority do and interact with each other daily everywhere in every institution, schools, community centres, parks, pools, biz, etc. Finally, there is an ocean of ca$h flowing here, where people from around the planet are looking for an investment investment haven.

e.g. I live in what would be considered a lower middle class neighbourhood of the old city. A modest, detached 3 bedroom house, with a modest wooden garage sells for $900k! The Real Estate Market has rolled on for 35 years now, without interruption. That too, can account for the lesser crime, because the older generations have done fine in life.

As for the American Black issue? Indeed, for all manner of historical reasons, demographic and living patterns, it is America's Achilles heel. Were it resolved at America's inception, instead of the 60% solution, or anytime in the next 200 years, I believe things would be fine- as they are here.

But, that didn't happen and all manner of bad values, related to society, work, education & housing have been bred generation over generation.

Sad, very sad.

Oh, PUHLEASE, cry me a Niagra Falls, will ya? :rolleyes: The blacks, like everyone else, should be thankful for living in this country! Buchanan said it best in his public message to Obama, of which I will post the transcript:

BUCHANAN TO OBAMA

By Patrick J. Buchanan

You say we need to have a conversation about race in America. Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White
America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and
demands heard....and among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Jeremiah Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere have done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream. Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

What more opportunity is it that the White people need to give to help the Blacks? If the poor white got this much opportunity there would be no poor white or lower class of white trash people!!

The main problem of why black people are not progressing is the, "They owe me!!” factor. Get it in your head:
Nobody Owes You Anything!


Obama talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks. Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for 'deserving' white kids?

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ?

Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time? Is Obama aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago. (emphasis mine!)

Buchanan is dead on the mark in the highlighted paragraph above. The black people's enemy is liberalism! Liberalism imposes another kind of pernicious slavery on blacks -- and for that matter all minorities: Political-Social-Psychological. And these "chains" are much more difficult to cut through than the physical ones ever were!

Buchanan, whether he knows it or not, actually speaks to a deep seated moral issue -- an attitutude that has been inculcated and nuttured into minorities by liberals. Buchanan describes it as the "you owe me" syndrome. Scripture describes it in another way:

Prov 30:15-16
5 The leech has two daughters, "Give," "Give."
There are three things that will not be satisfied,
Four that will not say, "Enough":
16 Sheol, and the barren womb,
Earth that is never satisfied with water,
And fire that never says, "Enough."
NASB

This sinful attitude has, over these many decades, been instilled into very many minorities. Liberals want to make leeches out of them -- want to make them perpetually dependent upon the Nanny State so that the leeches will always vote into office their sources of blood supply! And that, Mr. Rookies, is indeed "sad, very sad".

[Rookies]

"First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known."

:lol: :lol:

Ok, I stopped reading Far Right Pat's sermon of the Privileged, by the Privileged, For the Privileged right here!

Roll that hilarious revisionism back again, will ya?

So, first of all, Blacks sailed on the QE2 to America, free to roam the decks from their shackled seats in the bilge.

Then, upon arrival. Well, what to do with them? Walk free into the golden sunset? :lol: Nope- shackles on and frog marching to the latest plantation.

Where, they underwent the "freedom & prosperity" of slavery, whippings and starvation- all at the same time as being worth 60% of other men.

Following their Civil War release from slavery, :lol: :rolleyes: , they were welcomed into America during the next century, through virtual total discrimination, absence of any human rights and quick and terrifying, b.s., vigilante justice via public hanging at night!

"Greatest country for blacks"? :bang: FFS, this ranks up with the loon from the last election, who claimed Blacks were better off under Slavery!

Well, thank God for the small mercies of Christianity through the decades up to America's 3rd. Century. No doubt, by 2176, you'll have it figured out. :bang:

[Tom]

You know what boggles the mind?

THIS country is so bad for Blacks, so unsafe to walk the streets......yet Canada only has 2% Black population and there is NO border problmes to get there.....so why do they stay HERE?

[tucker6]

You know what boggles the mind?

THIS country is so bad for Blacks, so unsafe to walk the streets......yet Canada only has 2% Black population and there is NO border problmes to get there.....so why do they stay HERE?
The response to this post will make crickets blush

[tucker6]

"First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known."

:lol: :lol:

Ok, I stopped reading Far Right Pat's sermon of the Privileged, by the Privileged, For the Privileged right here!

Roll that hilarious revisionism back again, will ya?

So, first of all, Blacks sailed on the QE2 to America, free to roam the decks from their shackled seats in the bilge.

Then, upon arrival. Well, what to do with them? Walk free into the golden sunset? :lol: Nope- shackles on and frog marching to the latest plantation.

Where, they underwent the "freedom & prosperity" of slavery, whippings and starvation- all at the same time as being worth 60% of other men.

Following their Civil War release from slavery, :lol: :rolleyes: , they were welcomed into America during the next century, through virtual total discrimination, absence of any human rights and quick and terrifying, b.s., vigilante justice via public hanging at night!

"Greatest country for blacks"? :bang: FFS, this ranks up with the loon from the last election, who claimed Blacks were better off under Slavery!

Well, thank God for the small mercies of Christianity through the decades up to America's 3rd. Century. No doubt, by 2176, you'll have it figured out. :bang:
Your post is just as revisionistic as Boxcar's. In reality and since 1865, the US of A is the best place for blacks even with the prejudice that occurred. That doesn't condone ANY of the evils that have been done here, but compared to what has happened and is currently happening in Africa, prejudice and discrimination is a damned sight better than what would be the daily life back in the old world with genocide, starvation, war, disease, and the like.

[ElKabong]

I hate to destroy the Penis Envy faction of the forum here (rookies), but my neighborhood has virtually no crime history in the 28 years of living here. Of any kind... Dallas County, TX.... The kind of place the northern Penis Envy folks stereotype to make themselves feel better.

I can only think of 2 households on the block that don't have a handgun(s) inside. But well armed households isn't the reason for the low crime rate here. It's the demographics. And it pains me to say it b/c I'd REALLY love to think we as a society have passed that stage. Sadly we haven't.

Please....If you don't live here....If you aren't subjected to our lifestyle and day to day experiences on the streets or in our commutes....., then you'd far better represent yourself by not making stupid, ill informed comments.

[ElKabong]

The crime page of the Toronto Star seems to contradict your statement.

No kidding, lol. I guess this is one down, forty nine to go.....oops, make it two down...

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/06/10/man-found-beaten-shot-at-mt-pleasant-and-st-clair

TORONTO - A man was found beaten and shot Friday morning in an upscale midtown neighbourhood a few blocks from where another victim was gunned down earlier this week.

snip

[boxcar]

"First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known."

Not surprised. Truth is often a very bitter pill. Too much truth will often put one in the danger of choking to death.

[Rookies]

I hate to destroy the Penis Envy faction of the forum here (rookies), but my neighborhood has virtually no crime history in the 28 years of living here. Of any kind... Dallas County, TX.... The kind of place the northern Penis Envy folks stereotype to make themselves feel better.

I can only think of 2 households on the block that don't have a handgun(s) inside. But well armed households isn't the reason for the low crime rate here. It's the demographics. And it pains me to say it b/c I'd REALLY love to think we as a society have passed that stage. Sadly we haven't.

Please....If you don't live here....If you aren't subjected to our lifestyle and day to day experiences on the streets or in our commutes....., then you'd far better represent yourself by not making stupid, ill informed comments.

Low crime rate? What are you talking about?


"Dallas had a higher murder rate than most other cities with more than 1 million residents, according to preliminary figures from police and published reports. Cities that had lower rates than Dallas were: Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, New York, San Diego and San Jose, Calif. Chicago, Philadelphia and Houston all had higher rates."

[ElKabong]

Low crime rate? What are you talking about?


"Dallas had a higher murder rate than most other cities with more than 1 million residents, according to preliminary figures from police and published reports. Cities that had lower rates than Dallas were: Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, New York, San Diego and San Jose, Calif. Chicago, Philadelphia and Houston all had higher rates."

Are you mentally challenged? Seriously.

I mentioned my neighborhood. Does that compute? Not all neighborhoods in Dallas, or anywhere, are the same.

I live in a suburb, and not an exclusive burb. Middle to upper middle class. Fact is, in my neighborhood we have had no crime for the past 3 decades, of any kind whatsoever.

Same goes for *some* neighborhoods in Dallas proper. I know people that still live in the neighborhood i lived my first 11 yrs of my life (Lakewood), the same exists for them. No crime. But if they drive 2 miles from home, it's a different story.

Please read, process a thought, then post...Providing you have a point

[boxcar]

Low crime rate? What are you talking about?


"Dallas had a higher murder rate than most other cities with more than 1 million residents, according to preliminary figures from police and published reports. Cities that had lower rates than Dallas were: Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, New York, San Diego and San Jose, Calif. Chicago, Philadelphia and Houston all had higher rates."

There are some ares in my country wherein homeowners do their level best to deter crime in their community by posting signs such as: Trespassers will be shot or arrested...whichever comes first. :D Or Due to high cost of ammo, no bullets will be wasted firing warning shots.. :lol:

[Tom]

then you'd far better represent yourself by not making stupid, ill informed comments.

Be, all you can be. :lol:

[Rookies]

Are you mentally challenged? Seriously.

I mentioned my neighborhood. Does that compute? Not all neighborhoods in Dallas, or anywhere, are the same.

I live in a suburb, and not an exclusive burb. Middle to upper middle class. Fact is, in my neighborhood we have had no crime for the past 3 decades, of any kind whatsoever.

Same goes for *some* neighborhoods in Dallas proper. I know people that still live in the neighborhood i lived my first 11 yrs of my life (Lakewood), the same exists for them. No crime. But if they drive 2 miles from home, it's a different story.

Please read, process a thought, then post...Providing you have a point

Are you just playing at being an AH, or should I mark this down as a rhetorical question?

I fing know you were talking about your neighbourhood, until you decided to try and slip in the little reference to Toronto's crime data. As in the WHOLE city, not just MY neighbourhood.

Now I'm happy to entertain that little deflection, because Toronto stands up crime wise and virtually every other important indicy, for a city of 3 million, against any city on the planet.

But just look at you get your panties in a knot, when I decided to ante up with your entire city. Obviously you think it's a shit hole in several areas, especially because you're concerned about venturing a few blocks away from your "upper middle class" Shangri-La, without being armed.

I could care less. But, stop whining if you're not willing to argue the same parameters.

[Clocker]

But, stop whining if you're not willing to argue the same parameters.

How about if we argue the parameters of inalienable rights as addressed by the US Constitution?

Just as a matter of interest and curiosity, does the Canadian constitution recognize any inalienable human rights? Inquiring minds want to know. :p

[Rookies]

Just as a matter of interest and curiosity, does the Canadian constitution recognize any inalienable human rights? Inquiring minds want to know. :p

Of course.

Contents
Part I - An Overview of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Part II - The Contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 1 - Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Section 2 - Fundamental Freedoms
Section 3 - Democratic Rights
Section 4 | Section 5
Section 6 - Mobility Rights
Section 7 - Legal Rights
Section 8 | Section 9 | Section 10 | Section 11 | Section 12 | Section 13 | Section 14
Section 15 - Equality Rights
Section 16 - Official Languages of Canada
Section 17 | Section 18 | Section 19 | Section 20 | Section 21 | Section 22
Section 23 - Minority Language Educational Rights
Section 24 - Enforcement
Section 25 - General
Section 26 | Section 27 | Section 28 | Section 29 | Section 30 | Section 31
Section 32 - Application of Charter
Section 33
Section 34 - Citation
Section 52 - Constitution Act 1982

[Tom]

Now I'm happy to entertain that little deflection, because Toronto stands up crime wise and virtually every other important indicy, for a city of 3 million, against any city on the planet.

Nothing worth stealing there?

[Clocker]

Of course.

Contents
Part I - An Overview of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Part II - The Contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 1 - Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Section 2 - Fundamental Freedoms
Section 3 - Democratic Rights
Section 4 | Section 5
Section 6 - Mobility Rights
Section 7 - Legal Rights
Section 8 | Section 9 | Section 10 | Section 11 | Section 12 | Section 13 | Section 14
Section 15 - Equality Rights
Section 16 - Official Languages of Canada
Section 17 | Section 18 | Section 19 | Section 20 | Section 21 | Section 22
Section 23 - Minority Language Educational Rights
Section 24 - Enforcement
Section 25 - General
Section 26 | Section 27 | Section 28 | Section 29 | Section 30 | Section 31
Section 32 - Application of Charter
Section 33
Section 34 - Citation
Section 52 - Constitution Act 1982

That is supposed to be responsive? That is gibberish. It says nothing.

"Minority Language Educational Rights"? That's an inalienable human right? :D

[Clocker]

Nothing worth stealing there?

Or police state. :rolleyes:

[Rookies]

That is supposed to be responsive? That is gibberish. It says nothing.

"Minority Language Educational Rights"? That's an inalienable human right? :D

That is the table of content for the Charter, which governs Rights & Freedoms in Canada. If you're interested- look it up!

I'm not about to submit a Pol Sci Grad Paper on it.

[Clocker]

That is the table of content for the Charter, which governs Rights & Freedoms in Canada. If you're interested- look it up!

I'm not about to submit a Pol Sci Grad Paper on it.

This country is based on the belief that citizens have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, and the ability to protect those rights. I was hoping, apparently in vain, for a response at least that detailed.

[horses4courses]

I was hoping, apparently in vain, for a response at least that detailed.

I would imagine that your life is littered with disappointment. :lol:

[Tom]

That is the table of content for the Charter, which governs Rights & Freedoms in Canada.

Governs rights and freedoms.....sounds kind of oxymoron to me.

[Clocker]

I would imagine that your life is littered with disappointment. :lol:

Not really. I don't actually expect liberals to be able to logically explain or defend their unrealistic dogmatic beliefs. I just pretend to be incredulous when they can't. It's just a game.

[Rookies]

Not really. I don't actually expect liberals to be able to logically explain or defend their unrealistic dogmatic beliefs. I just pretend to be incredulous when they can't. It's just a game.

And I totally believe lazy Cons want simple slogans to guide them in life, through encapsulating complex concepts. Like some buffoon's statement of making a country great- again.

The Charter was promulgated in 1982, following extensive consultation. It is the constitutional cinder block, taking over, in recent times with established case law on every aspect of life, for the British North of America Act which established Canada and the Bill of Rights of the 1960s. It specifically begins with a Limitations Clause which allows the government to decide if a Fundamental Freedom, like say Speech has gone too far, in the balance between the Rights of an Individual v.s. Society.

Therefore, racist loons cannot spew anything they want, without the possibility of being subjected to Hate Speech Law and as confirmed by the SCC.

[Parkview_Pirate]

....It specifically begins with a Limitations Clause which allows the government to decide if a Fundamental Freedom, like say Speech has gone too far, in the balance between the Rights of an Individual v.s. Society.

Therefore, racist loons cannot spew anything they want, without the possibility of being subjected to Hate Speech Law and as confirmed by the SCC.

I would venture to say that it's those "limitations", as defined by .GOV, is where the problem lies for many of us from the States. Yes, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is one thing, but declaring that Mexicans and Blacks are criminals is another - and certainly allowed with in the range of "free speech". The U.S. has many faults, but diversity used to be rampant - with the KKK, Democrats, Republicans, the Nazis, and the Communists all allowed to have their own party. Government, when trying to legislate particular social viewpoints becomes repressive.

Today's social justice warriors, led by the tools on the left, are clamping down more and more on free speech. Donald Trump can't speak the truth about illegal aliens, but Spike Lee can tweet out George Zimmerman's address for the lynch mob. Go figure.

[boxcar]

Of course.

Contents
Part I - An Overview of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Part II - The Contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 1 - Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Section 2 - Fundamental Freedoms
Section 3 - Democratic Rights
Section 4 | Section 5
Section 6 - Mobility Rights
Section 7 - Legal Rights
Section 8 | Section 9 | Section 10 | Section 11 | Section 12 | Section 13 | Section 14
Section 15 - Equality Rights
Section 16 - Official Languages of Canada
Section 17 | Section 18 | Section 19 | Section 20 | Section 21 | Section 22
Section 23 - Minority Language Educational Rights
Section 24 - Enforcement
Section 25 - General
Section 26 | Section 27 | Section 28 | Section 29 | Section 30 | Section 31
Section 32 - Application of Charter
Section 33
Section 34 - Citation
Section 52 - Constitution Act 1982

Nice deflection and non-answer. Please quote chapter and verse from your Constitution that says Canadians' rights are inalienable. After all, if a government confers all rights upon it citizens, that same government has a right to revoke those rights! He who giveth can just as easily taketh away.

[Clocker]

And I totally believe lazy Cons want simple slogans to guide them in life, through encapsulating complex concepts.

True, I like to keep things simple. Like the Bill of Rights.

like say Speech has gone too far, in the balance between the Rights of an Individual v.s. Society.

Therefore, racist loons cannot spew anything they want, without the possibility of being subjected to Hate Speech Law and as confirmed by the SCC.

Hate Speech Law? As enforced by the Royal Canadian Thought Police?

It is really simple. Speech, or any other human right, has gone too far when it infringes on the rights of others. Slander and libel infringe on the rights of others. Hatred does not.

Yes, racist loons have the freedom to spew anything they want in this country, and everyone else has the freedom to ignore them or to spew back or to avoid them or to not vote for them. The alternative is for the government to determine what can or can't be said (or thought), and the government has a proven track record of incompetence in making such decisions.

Hate Speech Laws are a prime example of an evil that our Founding Fathers warned about: the tyranny of the majority.

[Clocker]

Today's social justice warriors, led by the tools on the left, are clamping down more and more on free speech.

Perhaps they should move to Canada. It sounds like the whole country is one great big Safe Space. :rolleyes:

[Rookies]

Nice deflection and non-answer. Please quote chapter and verse from your Constitution that says Canadians' rights are inalienable. After all, if a government confers all rights upon it citizens, that same government has a right to revoke those rights! He who giveth can just as easily taketh away.

Boxie... I have spoken about this before...

“ The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

That is, as a result of studying (largely) American, French & British Rights and their applicability to a modern, democratic society. It was decided via this clause, that Canadian Rights & Freedoms shouid not be absolute. They could be abridged under certain circumstances & conditions, under normal conditions of democracy.

When the Government gets involved in challenging a Right, they must meet this test, as well as to also meet the principle of proportionality.
"When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by lawnamely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional."

To whit... "Does the benefit to be derived from the legislation outweigh the seriousness of the infringement?"

So, under the previously cited SCC tested Freedom of Speech, a neo Nazi teacher espousing those views and false views of the Holocaust, was found Guilty and his Charter Right to Freedom of Speech, could not be invoked as part of the Defence.

However, in the situation of a Narcotics dealer, the SCC unanimously sprung him as the vernacular principles stated here were not met by the Prosecution:

There must be a pressing and substantial objective
The means must be proportional
The means must be rationally connected to the objective
There must be minimal impairment of rights
There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

Thus, the big bad government bogeyman does not get to intrude on Canadian Rights & Freedoms, without substantial and careful thought.

As to Clocker's original question, historians commonly assert the Canadian- American difference, as a far, far more CONSERVATIVE foundation in Canada. Originally, because of the frontier nature of the country, the sharp linguistic division (English & French) of founding fathers (hence the Language Rights enshrined in the Charter) and the sparse population north of the 49th. the phrase counterposed to: " life, liberty & pursuit of happiness" was "peace, order & good government." These were conservative values, ruled by, at least in Upper Canada (Ontario) by the original Conservative Party of Canada.

Of course, we have developed more appropriately & radically from that point, including more extensive Rights & Freedoms, along with various, societal measures than the U.S.A., since that restricted beginning.

[Tom]

Yes, racist loons have the freedom to spew anything they want in this country, and everyone else has the freedom to ignore them or to spew back or to avoid them or to not vote for them.

That is the ONLY way you have free speech.

Hate Speech Laws are a prime example of an evil that our Founding Fathers warned about: the tyranny of the majority.

Those same FF also had the had the foresight to draw the northern border! :lol:

[Rookies]

That is the ONLY way you have free speech.



Those same FF also had the had the foresight to draw the northern border! :lol:

We, of course, are absolutely delighted that this was accomplished, guaranteeing that we have an inordinate supply of 4 of the world's critical supplies, within our constitutional borders- Water, Oil, Wheat & Lumber... Potash & Natural Gas, too. ;)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Still saying God save the Queen and letting vote whores make laws about what sorts of insults are crimes. All these arguments should begin with this reminder why these arguments will never go anywhere. :D

[Tom]

We, of course, are absolutely delighted that this was accomplished, guaranteeing that we have an inordinate supply of 4 of the world's critical supplies, within our constitutional borders- Water, Oil, Wheat & Lumber... Potash & Natural Gas, too. ;)

Also lucky we don't need them that badly yet.....

[johnhannibalsmith]

Our track record thus far at stealing Canada is pretty awful. :lol:

[Rookies]

Still saying God save the Queen and letting vote whores make laws about what sorts of insults are crimes. All these arguments should begin with this reminder why these arguments will never go anywhere. :D

I should have replied to Tom earlier JHS, but you will do. As someone with Irish ancestry, dating to the approx. 1200, Normand invasion of Eire, the British Queen and the rest of those Royal fops are anathema to me. ;)

This is an embarrassing anachronism, held over from the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759, FFS. There are only a few loon, monarchist societies left today and the push is on to sever ties finally.

Personally, I despise monarchies. Having read the history of the Marlboroughs (Churchill), I personally do not understand why the servants (errr indentured slaves) of these work shy whores, did not garrotte them in their beds, near the commencement of the 20th. Century, as the winds of Socialism and Social Democracy, began to blow.

These royal swine would give their servants a 1/2 day off weekly- to attend Church! :lol: :bang:

So, I would agree. It should be a crime.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I should have replied to Tom earlier JHS, but you will do. As someone with Irish ancestry, dating to the approx. 1200, Normand invasion of Eire, the British Queen and the rest of those Royal fops are anathema to me. ;)

...

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

You'd be a fun guy to talk to. I read Trinity about every few years and wish there was more great Irish-themed literature about that plight. It is a subject that I truly wish that I would (/would have) spend (spent) much more time absorbing. It is a component of our history as Americans that is completely neglected and totally underrepresented in the story of who and what we are.

[Tom]

There is but one King.....BURGER King.

[johnhannibalsmith]

There is but one King.....BURGER King.

Is that why Trudeau shall heretoforth be called the Whopper Junior?

[Rookies]

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

You'd be a fun guy to talk to. I read Trinity about every few years and wish there was more great Irish-themed literature about that plight. It is a subject that I truly wish that I would (/would have) spend (spent) much more time absorbing. It is a component of our history as Americans that is completely neglected and totally underrepresented in the story of who and what we are.

I am embarrassed to say that I've never read it, but just ordered it from the library. For almost my entire life, sadly I ignored this critical part of myself, concentrating on North America, with a degree in U.S. Pol Sci & History. When the call came to visit Eire for the first time last year and immersed myself everywhere on the Net and with hard copy of every aspect.

Still doing that. I commend to you the free You Tube, Trinity College lecture series on Iteland in Rebellion 1782-1916. (This is not the true beginning of rebellious efforts, as these likely can be positioned at about 1600) However, there are 60? different half hour episodes on all of the ups & downs of Irish rebellions, uprisings & attempts at Revolution. It revisits every critical historical figure, place & event in detail. Guest appearances from the Head of the Irish Supreme Court, Prez of Trinity College and other contrarian Profs are featured.

I also don't mind the RTE mini series on the Uprising that came out this year, but the former is miles better- historically.

Although it is fair to say that the English were not exclusively to blame for the Famine of the 1840s, small chronicles like the following, from Rick Steeves tourist book, no doubt sealed their fate:

"In the winter of 1849, about 600 starving Irish walked 12 miles... hoping to get food from their landlord, but they were turned away. On the walk back, almost 200 of them died along the side of this road."

As for a fun sit down, well come to the Spa! I won't disappoint and politics is ducked there for the horsies. I've met PA, OTM Al, TC & Grits from Off Topic, as well as some of those here strictly on the main horse components- all nice people.

Of course, Tommy has been ducking me for years, even though I go past his 'Canada' town every year! :rolleyes:

Some others, decided not to come, the year I decided to visit a PA tent, from our spot up front in front of the grandstand.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... I commend to you the free You Tube, Trinity College lecture series on Iteland in Rebellion 1782-1916. (This is not the true beginning of rebellious efforts, as these likely can be positioned at about 1600) However, there are 60? different half hour episodes on all of the ups & downs of Irish rebellions, uprisings & attempts at Revolution. It revisits every critical historical figure, place & event in detail....

Well that alone makes up for encouraging America to become more like Europe and Canada. :D

Seriously, I'm not sure that I can focus on these races now. I've got to check that out. I really do appreciate it.

And I'd love to return to Saratoga one of these days. But, the horse thing makes it pretty impossible to take more than a few hours off. Plus I've gotten to where nothing in life seems worth the aggravation of dealing with an airport.

[johnhannibalsmith]

In case anyone else is interested in this departure from the topic before it gets back on track, I'll save you the search.

tATeLQL-B74

[boxcar]

Boxie... I have spoken about this before...

“ The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

That is, as a result of studying (largely) American, French & British Rights and their applicability to a modern, democratic society. It was decided via this clause, that Canadian Rights & Freedoms shouid not be absolute. They could be abridged under certain circumstances & conditions, under normal conditions of democracy.

When the Government gets involved in challenging a Right, they must meet this test, as well as to also meet the principle of proportionality.
"When the government has limited an individual's right, there is an onus upon the Crown to show, on the balance of probabilities, firstly, that the limitation was prescribed by lawnamely, that the law is attuned to the values of accessibility and intelligibility; and secondly, that it is justified in a free and democratic society, which means that it must have a justifiable purpose and must be proportional."

To whit... "Does the benefit to be derived from the legislation outweigh the seriousness of the infringement?"

So, under the previously cited SCC tested Freedom of Speech, a neo Nazi teacher espousing those views and false views of the Holocaust, was found Guilty and his Charter Right to Freedom of Speech, could not be invoked as part of the Defence.

However, in the situation of a Narcotics dealer, the SCC unanimously sprung him as the vernacular principles stated here were not met by the Prosecution:

There must be a pressing and substantial objective
The means must be proportional
The means must be rationally connected to the objective
There must be minimal impairment of rights
There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

Thus, the big bad government bogeyman does not get to intrude on Canadian Rights & Freedoms, without substantial and careful thought.

As to Clocker's original question, historians commonly assert the Canadian- American difference, as a far, far more CONSERVATIVE foundation in Canada. Originally, because of the frontier nature of the country, the sharp linguistic division (English & French) of founding fathers (hence the Language Rights enshrined in the Charter) and the sparse population north of the 49th. the phrase counterposed to: " life, liberty & pursuit of happiness" was "peace, order & good government." These were conservative values, ruled by, at least in Upper Canada (Ontario) by the original Conservative Party of Canada.

Of course, we have developed more appropriately & radically from that point, including more extensive Rights & Freedoms, along with various, societal measures than the U.S.A., since that restricted beginning.

See...sooner or later the truth comes out. All we gotta do is get you to loosen up a bit and talk about it.

Since Canadians have no absolute rights by your own admission, then those rights are not inalienable. Inalienable Rights by definition are rights that cannot be alienated, surrendered or transferred.

[Rookies]

See...sooner or later the truth comes out. All we gotta do is get you to loosen up a bit and talk about it.

Since Canadians have no absolute rights by your own admission, then those rights are not inalienable. Inalienable Rights by definition are rights that cannot be alienated, surrendered or transferred.

I've never claimed otherwise.

In fact, there have been prior arguments about Speech on a number of topics and I have defended the Canadian perspective on it.

NO, I don't believe any person should be able to shout any madness or trash in the marketplace. Of course I agree with some limits and have stated that many times before!

[Clocker]

In fact, there have been prior arguments about Speech on a number of topics and I have defended the Canadian perspective on it.

NO, I don't believe any person should be able to shout any madness or trash in the marketplace. Of course I agree with some limits and have stated that many times before!

Are you talking about (aboot?) the literal marketplace or the virtual marketplace of public communication?

Human rights are subject to restraint to the extent that they infringe on the rights of others. Freedom of speech does not extend to shouting &quot;Fire&quot;, or anything else, in a theater because that infringes on the property rights of the owner and potentially on the right to life and liberty of the other patrons.

Freedom of speech does not extend to the literal marketplace, e.g., a shopping mall, because that infringes on the property rights of the owner. It does not extend to a public place, such as a park, if it does not follow the rules of that park that apply to everyone without discrimination. Again, property rights prevail, as the park is owned by the public and administered by the public's representatives.

Freedom of speech does extend to the ability to say any vile, stupid thing you wish to in your own home or in a newspaper you publish or on your web site or in a meeting hall that you rent. If some moron wants to rent an auditorium and give a speech denying the Holocaust or warning about global warming, that is his right in this country. Most of us just ignore him. Smaller minds take offense and react equally stupidly.

Free speech means no limits on what you can say, only on where you can say it. So stay off my lawn.

[chrisl]

It is are right.

[Rookies]

"Freedom of speech does extend to the ability to say any vile, stupid thing you wish to in your own home or in a newspaper you publish or on your web site or in a meeting hall that you rent. If some moron wants to rent an auditorium and give a speech denying the Holocaust or warning about global warming, that is his right in this country. Most of us just ignore him. Smaller minds take offense and react equally stupidly."

While I understand perfectly the American point you are making, it simply doesn't apply in Canada OR for that matter in most of the civilized democracies. (e.g. The Euros)

I suppose any loon can rant about in his own domicile.

But, ALL of your other examples (I am fairly certain) would find fault with the Criminal Code of Canada. Oddly, I just had an example of some racist loon, who sent his trash through the mails, entering my door. Many persons petitioned against his garbage and he was just recently denied the use of the mails.

"Rented public halls"? Canada has had several denials of persons as disparate, as extreme right wing loons and fomenting Imams, within the last 5 years.

"Web sites"? If Canadian, they fall under the CCC.

To whit...

"Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda."

Bottom line?

We are different countries that have decided to enforce Speech in different ways.

America lets anybody say anything under some circumstances.
Canada restricts some speech via the threat of criminal prosecution under many circumstances.

[forced89]

We have both licensed concealed carry and open carry here in Texas. All Hell will break loose if they try to take either or both away from us.

[Clocker]

"Freedom of speech does extend to the ability to say any vile, stupid thing you wish to in your own home or in a newspaper you publish or on your web site or in a meeting hall that you rent. If some moron wants to rent an auditorium and give a speech denying the Holocaust or warning about global warming, that is his right in this country. Most of us just ignore him. Smaller minds take offense and react equally stupidly."
...

While I understand perfectly the American point you are making, it simply doesn't apply in Canada OR for that matter in most of the civilized democracies. (e.g. The Euros)
America lets anybody say anything under some circumstances.
Canada restricts some speech via the threat of criminal prosecution under many circumstances.

By George, I think he's almost got it. :D

We don't care about what applies in Canada or the "civilized democracies". We don't want or need "civilized" people to instruct us on gun rights or free speech or hate speech or safe spaces or thought crimes.

Our founders understood that there was a trade off between freedom and security. The "civilized democracies" opt for security. Many of us here are still pushing for the freedom side of the equation. We want "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and you are willing to settle for "peace, order & good government."

Trying to impose the "civilized democracies" view on free speech is bad enough. Americans and guns are a whole other universe well beyond the thought processes of "civilized democracies".

[Clocker]

We have both licensed concealed carry and open carry here in Texas. All Hell will break loose if they try to take either or both away from us.

I think you meant to say Texas will break loose if they try to take either or both away from us. :cool:

[ElKabong]

Are you just playing at being an AH, or should I mark this down as a rhetorical question?

I fing know you were talking about your neighbourhood, until you decided to try and slip in the little reference to Toronto's crime data. As in the WHOLE city, not just MY neighbourhood.

Now I'm happy to entertain that little deflection, because Toronto stands up crime wise and virtually every other important indicy, for a city of 3 million, against any city on the planet.

But just look at you get your panties in a knot, when I decided to ante up with your entire city. Obviously you think it's a shit hole in several areas, especially because you're concerned about venturing a few blocks away from your "upper middle class" Shangri-La, without being armed.

I could care less. But, stop whining if you're not willing to argue the same parameters.

Panties in a knot, that'd be you. That and back peddling.

Dallas= not my entire city. Read again.

And, I'm not armed,so take that nonsense and backtrack as well.

You just can't get it right. Mentally challenged indeed.

Post more in topics that don't concern your day to day. Feeds that penis envy problem of yours. Go on. You know you can't stay away. :)

[Parkview_Pirate]

After the events in Orlando today, I wonder what effect that will have on the court's bogus decision against conceal carry?

I'm sure the media won't spend much bandwidth on the security in place for that nightclub. I don't know if there are any gay bars in Tel Aviv, but something tells me the death toll would be lower if a similar attack happened there.....

[zico20]

Not sure if this was mentioned earlier, but a house bill has been introduced that will allow a citizen to carry in all 50 states.

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/01/new-bill-congress-states-concealed-constitutional-carry-reciprocity/

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Concealed+Carry+Recip rocity+Act+of+2017%22%5D%7D&r=1

The bill does state that you must have a valid ID. I guess that is where liberals will throw a fit, just like to vote.

[JustRalph]

"New York authorities, for instance, may be forced to allow a tourist from Mississippi — one of the 10 states that now authorizes permitless carry — to be armed while walking down Broadway, with his Mississippi ID the only permission he needs."

Who wants to be the first one to test Cuomo and De Blasio on this one.........

[chadk66]

"New York authorities, for instance, may be forced to allow a tourist from Mississippi — one of the 10 states that now authorizes permitless carry — to be armed while walking down Broadway, with his Mississippi ID the only permission he needs."

Who wants to be the first one to test Cuomo and De Blasio on this one.........I would guess Trump? ND is more than likely going to pass the same legislation this year. Should be nationwide anyway.