🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:37:38 GMT, "Semper Liber"
<nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:

>
>"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@SPAMshaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:cui192l3t7n1pqjvndhnp4b4mutu399pq1@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:05:28 GMT, "Semper Liber"
>> <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Semper Liber" <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote in message
>> >news:qk0kg.54933$S61.1982@edtnps90...
>> >> Public Safety minister Stockwell Day acknowledged that ALL Canadians
>will
>> >> need to be mobilized to be fully effective in the war on terror, and
>that
>> >an
>> >> effective defence will require the government to acknowledge the
>publics
>> >> right to defend themselves lawfully.... Day stated that his government
>was
>> >> committed to restore freedoms to law abiding Canadians as part of his
>> >> government mandate to fight the terrorists war on freedom.... Day
>stated
>> >> that if this law saves even one life it will be worth  it.....
>> >
>> >Interesting to see all the pro-terrorist kooks coming out against our
>right
>> >to self-defence. Now we see who's side they are really on.
>
>> Usual rightard 'debate' tactic, when losing claim the other guy is
>> 'pro terrorist'. Just like when people who could foresee where the
>> Iraq debacle was going, were accused of being 'pro Saddam'.
>
>You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer..... Just a few days
>ago i was told i was a terrorist sympathizer because i dared defend
>our/their right to due process and presumption of innocence. You theft/right
>black/white "thinking" loons must get vertigo every time you enter a urinal
>with more than two stalls.....

Look jackass, You were the one who called people who disagreed with
you 'pro-terrorist', or are you too dumb to read your own posts?
>

>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Brian Daily" <daily.brian@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:jo4p82ld66613kufl4f6boo8mj1g44r7vj@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:00:15 GMT, "Semper Liber"
>> >> > <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >"Brian Daily" <daily.brian@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > >news:bj5j821sjeo6b1tlbcu1b1dgt9cobjoelb@4ax.com...
>> >> > >> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:18:54 GMT, "Semper Liber"
>> >> > >> <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> >> I guess those fancy sidearms they carried proved to be kinda
>> >useless
>> >> > >for
>> >> > >> >self
>> >> > >> >> protection? Yet gun nuts everywhere yearn to own one. Stupid
>isn't
>> >> it.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >You think the cops are stupid for carrying sidearms for
>protection?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Nope.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >So why would they carry something you say is "useless"?
>> >> > >
>> >> > Useless to civilians.
>> >>
>> >> That makes no sense. Why would a bullet stop an attacker ONLY when
>fired
>> >by
>> >> someone wearing different clothing? Do cops have special decoder rings
>> >that
>> >> give their firearms special powers? Too funny!
>> >>
>> >> >It against the law for a civilian to use a sidearm for
>> >> > self defense in Canada.
>> >>
>> >> It is against the law for "governments" to make laws that differentiate
>> >> between individuals.... Rule of law means everyone is equal under the
>> >law -
>> >> equal in application and protection... end of story. We all have a
>right
>> >to
>> >> defend ourselves, and while it may be argued that a gun is not a
>> >reasonable
>> >> tool for self defence, such an argument by government would be totally
>> >> incoherent given the fact they issue guns to our servants for just such
>a
>> >> purpose. This sort of legal argument should even be simple enough for
>> >> dullards to understand...
>> >>
>> >> "Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even
>He
>> >and
>> >> They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or
>anyone
>> >> else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have
>no
>> >> force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill
>> >effect.
>> >> In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such
>> >> liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby
>compel
>> >> any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the
>> >> properties and persons and families of those (saving the King, Queen
>and
>> >the
>> >> royal children) who had successfully completed such abrogation,
>including
>> >> but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had
>> >> voted in favour of any such successful attempts at abrogation [1215].
>This
>> >> reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter
>is
>> >> the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in
>> >which
>> >> men have held it."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --Quote by Sir Winston Churchill, 1956
>> >>
>> >> > The gun can only be legally used for target shooting
>> >> > there fore it should be stored where it is used.
>> >>
>> >> The gun can be used to lawfully defend ones person or property when
>> >> threatened..... This is a fundamental right, and any law that states
>> >> otherwise can be safely ignored. End of Story.
>> >>
>> >> Per Arbour and LeBel JJ. : Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code requires
>a
>> >> subjective mens rea. Constitutional considerations aside, there is a
>> >common
>> >> law presumption that, absent a clear expression of Parliamentary
>intent, a
>> >> person is not liable for a criminal offence in the absence of
>subjective
>> >> mens rea. However, the elements of the offence must be distinguished
>from
>> >> the evidentiary problems that arise in any offence where the trier of
>fact
>> >> is called on to determine the subjective intent of an accused. To do
>this,
>> >> the trier of fact must look at the externalities or objective indicia
>of
>> >the
>> >> accused's state of mind.
>> >>      Under s. 88(1), an accused's subjective purpose must be one that
>is
>> >> dangerous to the public peace. To avoid importing an objective element
>> >into
>> >> a purely subjective approach, the concept of a "purpose dangerous to
>the
>> >> public peace" needs to be given concrete content. Within the meaning of
>s.
>> >> 88(1), it is the possession of a weapon with the intention of doing
>harm
>> >to
>> >> persons or property, or showing reckless disregard for harm to persons
>or
>> >> property. Section 88(1) does not require actual use of the weapon, but
>> >does
>> >> require possession of a weapon coupled with an additional intention.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> -- 
>>
>> "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement
>> of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent
>> encroachments of those in power than by violent and
>> sudden usurpations." - US President James Madison
>>
>> "To be a social conservative is to believe that the
>> poor have too much money, and the rich don't have
>> enough." - J.K. Galbraith
>>
>>
>> "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
>> yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days
>> is to go about repeating the very phrases which our
>> founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
>>  - Charles Austin Beard
>
"The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes them" - Jason Laumark

"I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who 
will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag" - Craig Washington, congressman

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an 
instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives 
and interests." Patrick Henry

"Any needless concentration of power is a menace to freedom" - Dwight D. Eisenhower