🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.

>
>
> "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.
>
>
>
>