timlang420
Active Member
i am a part of the "WE" that you keep mentioning and i disagree with you. thats something the founding fathers' language was also very clear on...democracy
Well, if you believe in the 2nd Amendment, Obama has a surprise for you...
- Thread starter gagekko
- Start date
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
Required to have it?
No, you do not nor have you ever lived under a dictatorship.
You are NOT required to have a gun culture, you were allowed to bear arms
under a centuries old document that "YOU" (Doer & others) are unwilling to allowed to be ratified
to reflect current times.
Does the US really have a well regulated militia when damn near anyone has the ability to acquire or obtain
guns?
While you are doing your research, look up how many illegal weapons cross the borders of the US into other
countries that are not so gun friendly.
No, you do not nor have you ever lived under a dictatorship.
You are NOT required to have a gun culture, you were allowed to bear arms
under a centuries old document that "YOU" (Doer & others) are unwilling to allowed to be ratified
to reflect current times.
Nowhere does it state you are required to own, possess or are required to have or pass down a gun culture.
Does the US really have a well regulated militia when damn near anyone has the ability to acquire or obtain
guns?
While you are doing your research, look up how many illegal weapons cross the borders of the US into other
countries that are not so gun friendly.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Ok split hairs
no one said ownership required
WE require a gun culture
WE put that in the C
WE are in self rule no dictator or King
WE do not listen to anyone but ourselves in reference to our Founding
WE like the Irish and Israeli are not Subjects
WE allow the govt to exist
WE allow ourselves to have this formal, protected Right not infringed
WE made sure it could not be infringed and it isn't. In Commonwealth there is no such thing as personal sovereignty So you can't understand
Read DC VS HELLER?
Secire yor border Not our problem
no one said ownership required
WE require a gun culture
WE put that in the C
WE are in self rule no dictator or King
WE do not listen to anyone but ourselves in reference to our Founding
WE like the Irish and Israeli are not Subjects
WE allow the govt to exist
WE allow ourselves to have this formal, protected Right not infringed
WE made sure it could not be infringed and it isn't. In Commonwealth there is no such thing as personal sovereignty So you can't understand
Read DC VS HELLER?
Secire yor border Not our problem
timlang420
Active Member
using caps suggests your yelling. if im talking to someone and they start yelling at me im just gonna walk away, while they look crazy.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
You can't tell the difference between yelling and using caps for emphasis?
timlang420
Active Member
yelling and talking shit is always a sign that you are loosing the debate.
timlang420
Active Member
i can. but if you read it the way he wrote it, he sounds like a douche bag, either way. and also is wrong...
Doer
Well-Known Member
Hey boy
i'm not having a debate don't take sides and having a discussion with my buddies and I thought you are going out to play in traffic
THIS IS SHOUTING!!!!
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
Doer,
Canada is in fact a sovereign nation.
The US does not require a gun culture, there are clear
and explicit differences between a right to own guns
and a gun culture.
You have the right to own a gun, and a responsibility to know and respect
the potential uses and dangers. A moral responsibility to teach your children
about firearms and their moral uses while considering the greater good of your neighbors
and general public.
While yes the borders are our issue on our side, the guns and free flow protected by individuals
such as yourself are also a problem. Perhaps, this may be a portion of the issue we take with the "gun culture"
you are not willing to speak of
You, do not allow your gov to exist. Your gov will continue to exist
whether you or the greater general public is alive. Most govs
in the world have insured themselves this luxury to continue governing
beyond catastrophic events to ensure the survival of the country.
I did not split hairs, I outlined two distinct facts. One of which you will
argue, the other you are unwilling to debate.
timlang420
Active Member
you're weird bro. how can you say you're having a discussion (i think thats what you're trying to say...) and then at the end of the sentence tell me to play in traffic. then you use caps to tell me your shouting? how fucking old are you? whatever dude, im done with this thread, not worth it, bringing my high down.
Doer
Well-Known Member
good pick a busy intersection.
i said i'm having a discussion with my buddies, not debating a fool who tries to correct my writing style. Clear?
SHOUT (don't look both ways)
Doer
Well-Known Member
Lung, you don't know what this is. WE is not a concept of me. It a mutigenerational, standing, Constituted WE.
In Canada, it is so rural, but you must wait for a police response. That doesn't work. So all the little stories like this one are suppressed because you don't have a free press. The Canada press is a Commonweath contained press. Lot of rules to suppress this stuff.
You can sit there as a Crown Subject in a Sovereign Commonweath Nation but that by definition make you NOT a sovereign individual, like myself.
You can't see it. But, it is the difference. The only reason our nation is soverign is because a bunch of individual sovereigns Constituted it this way.
You are a Subject of the Crown. It doesn't matter what you think. These are the facts. We Rebelled. You didn't.
So, don't act like you know, Subject. You can't possible know individual, Constitutional Sovereign Rights.
You don't have them. Study some civics?
Right of the United Kingdom,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia, etc. Because both Canada and Australia are federations, there are also crowns in right of each Canadian province and each Australian state; there is the Crown in Right of the Province of British Columbia and Crown in Right of Victoria.[SUP][5][/SUP] The Crown's powers are exercised—whether by the monarch or by any of his or her representatives—on the advice of the appropriate local ministers, legislature, or judges, none of which may advise the Crown on any matter pertinent to another of the Crown's jurisdictions.
--------------
I bet this happens all over and you don't know. Home invasions. We have the Castle Doctrine. You don't. It was erroded, by the Crown, before you were born. No real Consistution, ya see?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/jim-sutherland/the-canadian-version-of-home-protection-laws/
The case has boiled down to a careless storage charge after several more serious charges such as dangerous use of a firearm and pointing a firearm were dropped by the Crown. The police arrived and discovered that Thomson had not returned his weapons to their locked storage, then added the careless storage charge to the other ones. The other charges were withdrawn after Thomson’s video surveillance camera proved that he acted in a defensive manner with his handgun during the confrontation.
In Canada, it is so rural, but you must wait for a police response. That doesn't work. So all the little stories like this one are suppressed because you don't have a free press. The Canada press is a Commonweath contained press. Lot of rules to suppress this stuff.
You can sit there as a Crown Subject in a Sovereign Commonweath Nation but that by definition make you NOT a sovereign individual, like myself.
You can't see it. But, it is the difference. The only reason our nation is soverign is because a bunch of individual sovereigns Constituted it this way.
You are a Subject of the Crown. It doesn't matter what you think. These are the facts. We Rebelled. You didn't.
So, don't act like you know, Subject. You can't possible know individual, Constitutional Sovereign Rights.
You don't have them. Study some civics?
Right of the United Kingdom,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of the Commonwealth of Australia, etc. Because both Canada and Australia are federations, there are also crowns in right of each Canadian province and each Australian state; there is the Crown in Right of the Province of British Columbia and Crown in Right of Victoria.[SUP][5][/SUP] The Crown's powers are exercised—whether by the monarch or by any of his or her representatives—on the advice of the appropriate local ministers, legislature, or judges, none of which may advise the Crown on any matter pertinent to another of the Crown's jurisdictions.
--------------
I bet this happens all over and you don't know. Home invasions. We have the Castle Doctrine. You don't. It was erroded, by the Crown, before you were born. No real Consistution, ya see?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/jim-sutherland/the-canadian-version-of-home-protection-laws/
The case has boiled down to a careless storage charge after several more serious charges such as dangerous use of a firearm and pointing a firearm were dropped by the Crown. The police arrived and discovered that Thomson had not returned his weapons to their locked storage, then added the careless storage charge to the other ones. The other charges were withdrawn after Thomson’s video surveillance camera proved that he acted in a defensive manner with his handgun during the confrontation.
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
Doer,
Lets agree to disagree. I really would rather not argue.
I will leave you with this.
Lets agree to disagree. I really would rather not argue.
I will leave you with this.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Ah 1982. The Irish are way ahead. And you still don't have a Castle Doctrine. You still have throttle press, Commonweath rules. We get to watch all the details of our legal system. It protects us. You don't Press Clamp.
You don't have Individual Sovereignty. So, I'm not debating.I don't care. We don't have to even agree to disagree. I'm not doing anything but this, in this Political section. So, grip us. I'm not arguing. I said I'm with with my buddies, you included at present.
I am actualizing my Influence strategies. It matter not, what the reader thinks. If they read it, they think.
Canada's transition from a self-governing British colony into a fully independent state was an evolutionary process, which arose in such a gradual fashion that it is impossible to ascribe independence to a particular date.
www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html
-------------
IT is the same almost in Oz, except they never got around to a Constitution of RIGHTS.
And please, I didn't come to this blind. I read, yesterday, all the founding docs of Canada, that spread over centuries.
You are not a nation that granted right to their govt. The Crown gave you some.
WE are individual Sovereigns that rebelled. This is very real to us. It's the basis of our society. Independent.
You don't have Individual Sovereignty. So, I'm not debating.I don't care. We don't have to even agree to disagree. I'm not doing anything but this, in this Political section. So, grip us. I'm not arguing. I said I'm with with my buddies, you included at present.
I am actualizing my Influence strategies. It matter not, what the reader thinks. If they read it, they think.
Canada's transition from a self-governing British colony into a fully independent state was an evolutionary process, which arose in such a gradual fashion that it is impossible to ascribe independence to a particular date.
www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html
-------------
IT is the same almost in Oz, except they never got around to a Constitution of RIGHTS.
And please, I didn't come to this blind. I read, yesterday, all the founding docs of Canada, that spread over centuries.
You are not a nation that granted right to their govt. The Crown gave you some.
WE are individual Sovereigns that rebelled. This is very real to us. It's the basis of our society. Independent.
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
What part of the quoted text did you not understand?
I blew holes straight through your position in a single line.
We have a constitution, we are fully independent.
Who really cares if the Irish are ahead, really a non issue, but perhaps
a talking point that you feel actually holds merit?
I was trying to be nice by suggesting we agree to disagree while pointing out how
blatantly wrong you were/are.
I was offering you an exit before I destroy more of your comments.
Doer
Well-Known Member
You are tap dancing and arguing and "destroying." trying to have right fight. I know more. You are not an Individual Sovereign. I am.
I'm influencing. It has nothing to do with you. Get over it.
Doer
Well-Known Member
And this is the main difference, that anyone can read before they show how un-informed they are.
The United States Bill of Rights also contains rights to life and liberty under the Fifth Amendment and the United States Constitution guarantees those rights again under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Canada before the Charter, the Canadian Bill of Rights contained rights to life, liberty and security of the person, but all these other laws limit those rights through due process rather than fundamental justice. Fundamental justice is read more substantively.[SUP][17][/SUP]
Another key difference is that the Fifth and Fourteenth US Amendments add the right to property, and the Canadian Bill adds the right to "enjoyment of property." The fact that section 7 excludes a right contained in its sister laws is taken as significant, and thus rights to property are not even read into the rights to liberty and security of the person.
--------------------------
The property called Canada, still belongs, ultimately to the Crown.
We rebelled to put a stop to the bullshit. Canada did not.
The United States Bill of Rights also contains rights to life and liberty under the Fifth Amendment and the United States Constitution guarantees those rights again under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Canada before the Charter, the Canadian Bill of Rights contained rights to life, liberty and security of the person, but all these other laws limit those rights through due process rather than fundamental justice. Fundamental justice is read more substantively.[SUP][17][/SUP]
Another key difference is that the Fifth and Fourteenth US Amendments add the right to property, and the Canadian Bill adds the right to "enjoyment of property." The fact that section 7 excludes a right contained in its sister laws is taken as significant, and thus rights to property are not even read into the rights to liberty and security of the person.
--------------------------
The property called Canada, still belongs, ultimately to the Crown.
We rebelled to put a stop to the bullshit. Canada did not.
ricky1lung
Well-Known Member
You are not influencing anything or anyone.
I am simply pointing out the incorrect postings you're making and debating actual
facts. These are not talking points I dream up, these are clear facts in direct rebuttal
to your non factual postings.
If posting facts is fighting then so be it.
I am simply pointing out the incorrect postings you're making and debating actual
facts. These are not talking points I dream up, these are clear facts in direct rebuttal
to your non factual postings.
If posting facts is fighting then so be it.
Doer
Well-Known Member
You use the personal fight word. I am posting facts you are not aware of. Press Clamp. We rebelled and have a free press and our own property. Not Subjects or subject to the Crown.
I guarantee you, you are being influenced if you don't even see it or want it.
Not even talking to you though you take any facts about Canada not the same as the US, personally.
This is not about you.