They're at it again

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

How is the "peace, security, and happiness of the citizenry" ensured by a "Right" that leads to more than 10,000 deaths annually by firearms?

I believe the Beatles titled the song..."Happiness is a Warm Gun". Just as the old Colt .45 was nicknamed "The Peacemaker". The American way to 'peace, security and happiness' is to make it so nobody will f*#k with you.

[moderateamericain]

your absolutely right. The right to bear arms is in place to protect us from our own government. and you know what? I like that. Regardless of what you think about our archaic law, it is our law. I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

[Argus]

your absolutely right.  The right to bear arms is in place to protect us from our own government.  and you know what?  I like that.  Regardless of what you think about our archaic law,  it is our law.  I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would rather live on my feet - except when I'm sitting in my lazyboy chair, of course - or my sofa. Of course, my bed is comfortable, too.

You see all these choices available? You don't have to choose one or t'other.

BTW, I don't believe your "law" has never actually been tested at the Supreme Court level. That is, numerous states and cities have passed gun control laws and the SC has never told them "no". There is considerable doubt it ever would, as in the only case to reach the US SC they were fairly clear in their opinon that the 2nd amendment related to militia, not individuals.

[B. Max]

It is true, BMax. The States as the representative of the people on the misguided ideals of the Framers of the Constitution were to have an armed citizenry to prevent "tyranny" of the central government.

All the Amendments apply only to citizens against the federal government: none to citizens against the States which had an entirely free hand with no protection for the rights of citizrns against the States.

The whole Constitution was based on false premises like the idea that the interests of the individual states and their citizens were identical.

Most of the Amendments have now been "naturalized" and apply against the states also.

The Right to Bear Arms is an outmoded concept that considered the whole world as a dangerous place; the natural world and the world of government.

How is the "peace, security, and happiness of the citizenry" ensured by a "Right" that leads to more than 10,000 deaths annually by firearms?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong as usual. The bill of rights was not to give anyone rights that did not already exist nor did they give any power to the states. They are individual rights and nothing eles, nor can they be changed by any government. 10'000 deaths by people defending themselves. The right to keep and bear arms is not outmoded, and infact never will be. The entire constitution was writen on the premise that government was granted it's power from the people and that it was limited only to those powers which the constitution gave it..

http://www.barefootsworld.net/consti10.html#140-4

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

Begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday, the Fourth

of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the Time of their Adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added: And as exceeding the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution,

RESOLVED, by the Senate, and House of Representatives, of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Two Thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States: All, or any of, which Articles, when ratified by Three-Fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz.

Articles in Addition to, and Amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The above PREAMBLE was then followed by twelve proposed amendments, the first two of which failed of adoption. The first related to membership in the House of Representatives by population, and the second was against the taking effect of laws varying the compensation of senators and representatives until an election should have intervened. This second proposed amendment was resurrected in 1985 and ratified, becoming Amendment Article XXVII after ratification on May 7, 1992. Six States had ratified this proposed amendment in the two year period from 1790 to 1791, and between 1985 and 1992 an additional 33 States ratified this amendment proposal that was nearly 200 years old.

In ALL the presentations of the Bill of Rights today this most important part of the Bill Of Rights, setting forth the purpose of the Amendments, is left off. Without this Preamble we have no protection from those who would pass amendments, laws, or otherwise corrupt the Constitution.

I have taken the liberty to emphasis in red text the area I am referring to. Please join with me to correct this misconstruction of the Bill Of Rights before it becomes an accepted presentation. It is ESSENTIAL that we read and present the Constitution in it's entirety.

This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States.

It has been stated that some scholars don't think this is important. This is a fallacy.

It is IMPERATIVE for the following reason:

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede and restrict all previous parts of the Constitution, and restrict all subsequent amendments to the framework of the Bill of Rights amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments are a declaration in very plain language of the restrictions to the powers of government and "STATE".

There are people in this country that do not want us to know that this Preamble ever existed. For many years these words and understanding have been "omitted" from presentations of our Constitution.

Public and private schools and colleges alike have based the education of the people and their whole interpretation of the Constitution on this fraudulent omission. (Indeed, when I was searching for it, I was informed by the Dean of the Law School at UC Berkley, that the Bill of Rights amendments had no Preamble.)140

Corrupt judiciary and politicians have, through clever deception, erected interpretations and statutes that fly in the face, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights amendments. The amendments and their declaratory and restrictive intent can be changed only by due process and the will of the people, as prescribed in the Fifth Article of the Original Constitution.

The Bill of Rights amendments, being declaratory and restrictive, are separate from all the other amendments. The Bill of Rights amendments restrict the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government and "STATE".

The deception is that government and "STATE" can interpret all of the Amendments and the Constitution itself, to serve the ends of "STATE".

By Omitting and Ignoring the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this has been done, usurping the Rights of the People.

As Thomas Cooley has said in "Principles of Constitutional Law":

"Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it . . . To pass an act when they are in DOUBT, whether it does or does not violate the Constitution, is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume."

We the People must end the deception.

The ten Amendments adopted make the so-called American Bill of Rights. The plain fact is that these Amendments do not confer any rights on anyone.

These RIGHTS are INHERENT to all FREE MEN,

bestowed on them by their CREATOR.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear B. Max,

10'000 deaths by people defending themselves.

That's a larf. I understand the ratio is less than 5% 'self defence' cases, the majority outright murder. Then, a substantial amount accidental (children playing with daddy's 'found' gun), then suicide. Self-defence probably accounts for the least number of cases of gun deaths. For cases of individuals using a gun 'to protect the individual from tyrannical, self-serving gov't', the cases number around zero, (That is, if you don't count Waco), and Timothy McVeigh used explosives.

So, if you are saying that the 'right to bear arms' is inherently to keep the gov't in line, you actually aren't allowed to use guns for that purpose, so the Second amendment is worthless.

[Melanie_]

We went to Minneapolis this summer, and on all the doors going in to the Mall of America is stated "no guns allowed in the Mall of America". It made me wonder, does that mean that guns are allowed everywhere else we went? Do people really think they need to bear arms to defend themselves at Valley Fair, or the Minnesota Zoo? Sure, the entrance fees were highway robbery.....

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

"no guns allowed in the Mall of America". It made me wonder, does that mean that guns are allowed everywhere else we went? Do people really think they need to bear arms to defend themselves at Valley Fair, or the Minnesota Zoo? Sure, the entrance fees were highway robbery.....

Hilarious. Again, the 'right to bear arms' seems to imply 'only against gov't', rather than those thieving merchants...

I went to the CHAMP Car race in Edmonton AB this summer(though I was disappointed that ther were no 'War Amp' kids competing), and it was a wonderful event with attendees from as far away as the US and China. In the newspaper the next day an American that was visiting commented, "Gee, the people are so nice and polite in Canada. If you accidentally bump into someone, more than likely you'll hear them say 'excuse me'. In the US at a car race, if you bump into someone, all they want to do is fight".

Makes you wonder how 10,000 gun deaths can occur in the country with the most guns per capita, and signs on the doors of malls, etc. indicating where you can or cannot take your gun.

[Guest eureka]

I am not remotely interested in "barefoot" anywhere: not even in the Park.

The Bill of Rights was effective only against the Federal Government and I am not interested in arguing that, either. To contend otherwise is too foolish for words. The federal government had no power to unilaterally amend the Constitution and the States at that time had no thought of ceding those powers to the federal government. Have you heard of the American Civil War?

The Bill of Rights is still not entirely effective against the States. There are a couple more Amendments to go. Even the much touted fifth Amendment has not yet been completely "nationalised."

Not until the passage of the 14th. amendment was there any attempt to bring the Bill to bear against the individual states by means of the "Due Process" Provision. Most of the Bill is effective against most states, but not of itself. The protections come from the Rights legislation of the Individual States which is rarely as strong.

[B. Max]

I am not remotely interested in "barefoot" anywhere: not even in the Park.

The Bill of Rights was effective only against the Federal Government and I am not interested in arguing that, either. To contend otherwise is too foolish for words. The federal government had no power to unilaterally amend the Constitution and the States at that time had no thought of ceding those powers to the federal government. Have you heard of the American Civil War?

The Bill of Rights is still not entirely effective against the States. There are a couple more Amendments to go. Even the much touted fifth Amendment has not yet been completely "nationalised."

Not until the passage of the 14th. amendment was there any attempt to bring the Bill to bear against the individual states by means of the "Due Process" Provision. Most of the Bill is effective against most states, but not of itself. The protections come from the Rights legislation of the Individual States which is rarely as strong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not remotely interested in "barefoot" Barefoot bob is not the author of that site. He was a mentor to the author.

Then you are not interested in what is likely the best most complete and well researched word on the US constitution there is, "(or so I've been told by american lawyers who I've debated with on these matters)" for constructionists and those who understand that without adherence to the constitution all one is left with is lawless government like we have in this country. The prelude to a tyranny. Unfortunately because of activist judges and mischief makers, the bill of rights has been somewhat bent out of shape and is reflected in societies ills largely due to wrongs becoming rights. Which was greatly speeded up with the introduction of a posion to the culture, cultural marxism " economic marxism translated into cultural terms, and better know as political correctness.

The 14th, probably illegal under some strange circumstances by which it was passed if i remember correctly, and yes it is often refered to in the way you describe it. The bill of rights is considered part of the constitution and the preamble sets out the purpose of the bill which the states ratified. Most likely the reason those who would try and usurp individual rights would rather no one new about the preamble.

[Guest eureka]

It is not "complete and well researched." It is a pile of crap from the types who make up the NRA. I have given you some inkling of the reality. And what I gave you happens to be truthful and factual - not a hundred thousand words attempting to justify the actual denial of Rights.

[B. Max]

It is not "complete and well researched." It is a pile of crap from the types who make up the NRA. I have given you some inkling of the reality. And what I gave you happens to be truthful and factual - not a hundred thousand words attempting to justify the actual denial of Rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense, you don't know what your talking about.

[mcqueen625]

Bottom line here is that Canadian guns laws are unenforceable. I believe the handgun law was brought in around 1934 or thereabouts and in an article I read roughly only 20% of all hand guns were ever registered. Our government couldn't get that right either, so what does the Cretin do/ He brings in long-gum legislation to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. There are virtually untold numbers of long-guns in Canada that have never been register and never will be, and why is that? I believe it is because people do not trust big government to do exactly what they did in Australia when the same type of legislation was brought into being, eventual confiscation without compensation. Crimes committed with guns has gone up in Australia since this legislation was enacted, because now the only people with guns are the criminals and the police. People cannot protect themselves, and crimes like B&E.'s have gone up drastically. I believe our government knows full well that many people in Canada just refused to register their weapons, and they have no idea just how many actual guns there are out there. Of course there is also the point that our government does not want to admit that their precious gun registery is an utter failure, but the bill to maintain it is approaching $2 billion if it has not alrady surpassed that amount. There is talk of them farming it out to a private corporation to maintain, likely a Liberal friendly owner, and as a private arms-length contract like that is not accountable to the taxpayer's of Canada. When that happens it will be virtually impossibel to assertain what trhe cost are, because the bill for those services will be buried inside some department's budget, under the Justice portfolio.

[Guest eureka]

I am not going to get into it with you, BMax, because you are not up to it.

I have debated, and routed, American lawyers about the Bill of Rights. I also found some American lawyers agree with me (those that can see facts). More Americans than you would think are not taken in by the patriotic rhetoric.

[B. Max]

I am not going to get into it with you, BMax, because you are not up to it.

I have debated, and routed, American lawyers about the Bill of Rights. I also found some American lawyers agree with me (those that can see facts). More Americans than you would think are not taken in by the patriotic rhetoric.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A wise choice on your part. Otherwise you will find out if i'm up to it or not. Leftist nonsense is no match for the facts.

[Guest eureka]

That is why you are not up to it. You seem to think that Constitutional Law is Left or Right and that only demented "Rightists" have the "right" conclusions.

Humour is a good thing, generally, but sometimes one can laugh too hard.

[B. Max]

That is why you are not up to it. You seem to think that Constitutional Law is Left or Right and that only demented "Rightists" have the "right" conclusions.

Humour is a good thing, generally, but sometimes one can laugh too hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The facts are the facts, and the fact is you're outa ammo.

[scribblet]

[quote name=B. Max' date='

So to really tackle gun violence the politicans have to confront: Black crime, Native smuggling, bleeding heart judges, and underfunded federal policing agencies.

Not going to happen. Putting more money into after school basketball programs and blaming the americans is a whole lot safer, politically speaking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are correct that the current bouts of violence in Toronto are black on black, a point which is now beginning to get some attention. The guns are not walking across the border all on their own, they are being brought in, and these are the people we should be blaiming - the perpetrators.

I don't see how building more community centres and hoop courts is going to stop a criminal who has no value for life. We should be putting the money from the gun registry into more police officers on the street, while increasing and enforcing sentences for gun crimes.

The councillor was slammed for this idea, but something has to be done.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

Bob Runciman also weighed in on it.

Ontario’s Public Security Minister, Bob Runciman, came under fire for remarks that he made about the leadership within Toronto’s black community. Speaking about black-on-black violence that has recently plagued the city, Runciman blamed unnamed black leaders for the increasing amount of gun violence. The Minister said that there are leaders in the black community "who don’t accept any degree of responsibility for trying to solve the problem and challenges and misunderstandings. I think some folks here appear to have, in my view, a vested interest in seeing this kind of tension (the tension between the black community and the Toronto police) continue to exist. Some people are making a living off some of this…they certainly don’t seem focused on finding solutions."

Needless to say, Runciman’s comments provoked the usual predictable responses. Liberal MPP, Monte Kwinter, whose name connotes excellence in hot dogs rather than politics, went the furthest and called Runciman’s remarks racist. NDP leader, Howard Hampton, expressed his usual outrage (anyone ever notice that Howie gets outraged about practically everything).

[Sir Chauncy]

Whether it ia a Canuck or an American bringing guns across the border is niether here nor there. The fact is that people in both countries are involved. These guns are bought in America or else brought here then sold.

Either way Americans are as involved as Canucks, and this blame Canada nonsense since Bush came to power needs to stop.

The real problem lies in border checks. How in he77 are these guns getting past all that American security. That is the place blame should lay. America pays dearly for all this fancy security since 9/11 and guns are coming across the border.

OR do they only stop stuff entering America and let anything out.

Funny how no one seems to notice the obvious.

Sir Chauncy

[PocketRocket]

Actually CHAUNCY, the Canadian security guards are primarily responsible for stuff coming into Canada.

Likewise, American border guards are responsible for checking out the stuff entering the USA.

It's been this way for decades.

Can't blame USA border security for firearms coming into Canada.

As for the gang violence and killings, I think we should simply erect a giant paintball-park style enclosure, invite them all to play, and give them all real guns with live ammo.

This would simultaneously rid our society of a lot of killers, while preventing innocent bystanders from being caught in the crossfire.

I do believe that some people would be stupid enough to sign up and take their "best shot".

Being that society has, by and large, eliminated the process of evolution through natural selection in mankind, this would be one way of "culling the herd" by taking some stupid people out of the gene pool.

[PocketRocket]

It made me wonder, does that mean that guns are allowed everywhere else we went? Do people really think they need to bear arms to defend themselves at Valley Fair, or the Minnesota Zoo?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whah shurly, Missy.

At thuh Valley Fair last year, somebuddy tried tuh steal mah slice o' apple pie.

You kin betchur britches thet when ah put mah colt 45 in his face, he set down thet pie nice an' slow, an' backed off, real easy-lahk.

An' at thet thar zoo yuh mentioned, whah jest last week two peepul were attacked by a macaw thet got loose from it's cage.

One o' them got a nasty scratch upside his left ear.

T'other feller was scared half to death. Thet nasty bird stole his corn-chips.

Thet never woulda happened if they had been carryin'.

[PocketRocket]

Where did this thread start again???

Oh yeah......

They're at it again, The blame america first crowd

Well, that's only because it's all America's fault.

(Sorry, not much sleep last night, too much coffee this morning. It all adds up to make 'Rocket a silly boy. But hey, it's all in good fun)

[Montgomery Burns]

Dumb is in the mind of the beholder. Put me down for an international gun ban.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mirror is no longer on the forum, so I will direct my comments to you. I would not like guns banned because I know that the bad guys would not turn in their guns. I have grandparents that live on an isolated farm and I am glad that Grandpa has guns for protection.

Don't you remember what happened when the UK banned handguns? Their robbery and break-in rate went up 60% because (surprise!) the bad guys never turned in their guns. Now their citizens are disarmed and are at the mercy of the bad guys who are not so leery of breaking into homes - unlike the US where the bad guys are leery of breaking into homes for fear of not knowing what the homeowner has for protection. Indeed many of their shooting incidents come from people protecting their home.

When a govt disarms its population - be aware. One of the first things Hitler did was disarm the German citizenry.

[Guest eureka]

Do you ever get anything right, Monty? The British Robbery and Burglary rate did not go up 60%

I have previously dealt with this one as the mistaken belief of a less rabid right winger than you. Britain moved from a reporting system of multiple charges being reported as one crime to reporting the separate charges in total. There was no increase and there was a decrease in gun related homicides. I gave figures for both sets of statistics on another thread long ago.

[PocketRocket]

OMG, I found something MONTY and I agree on.

I would not like guns banned because I know that the bad guys would not turn in their guns. 

I have to agree with this statement fully.

It has been said time and time again that those who use guns lawlessly, simply don't and won't care about what the law says about owning a gun.

I own a few. I no longer hunt. I don't need them to subsist.

But I like the fact that they are there, and I still occasionally enjoy target shooting.

My firearms are stored safely.

If someone were to break into my house, they would have a far more difficult time getting at my firearms than they would have getting into the house in the first place.

Ammunition is hidden in a totally different place.

If criminals were worried about firearm laws, we would not be seeing any crimes carried out with handguns or semi-auto or automatic weapons.

But alas, we still do.

When a govt disarms its population - be aware.  One of the first things Hitler did was disarm the German citizenry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't quite see Canada, of all places, walking down that path, and that is not my worry.

Nonetheless, I am against a firearms ban.

[Montgomery Burns]

Do you ever get anything right, Monty? The British Robbery and Burglary rate did not go up 60%

I have previously dealt with this one as the mistaken belief of a less rabid right winger than you. Britain moved from a reporting system of multiple charges being reported as one crime to reporting the separate charges in total. There was no increase and there was a decrease in gun related homicides. I gave figures for both sets of statistics on another thread long ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thankfully I remembered bookmarking Britain’s own Home Office from a while back when another LLL like Eureka tried the same tactic of intellectual dishonesty regarding disarming law-abiding citizens.

Page 10:

UK homicide rates from 1997 to 2001 went up 19%.

US homicide rates from 1997 to 2001 went down 12%.

Page 12:

UK violent crime rates went up 26%.

US violent crime rates went down 12%.

Page 13:

UK robbery rate went up 92%.

US robbery rate went down 15%.

Britain Home Office Criminal Justice Statistics

My reason for including the US is because during this time, while Britain had outlawed private ownership of firearms, about 35 million additional civilian firearms were sold in the US.

Eureka should pay me for all the education I give him.