🚀 go-pugleaf

"Semper Liber" <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote in message
news:sn2kg.40591$771.12896@edtnps89...
>
> "Semper Liber" <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote in message
> news:qk0kg.54933$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.


Yes, these freedom deniers who boot lick the government propaganda, also
don't believe in rights or liberty's, must be their all been smoking all
that New World Order Shit, and they are pro-terrorists.... Otherwise they
would be willing to do anything it takes, defend our homeland...

Where are the real Canadian Patriots........The meeting at the Bridge!




> > "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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>